Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 413 posts

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#311

Post by aetherson »

marmada wrote: post #299
lordlimecat wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit is saying "We stand for free speech" and then later saying "the best way to deal with toxic and hateful viewpoints is to censor and hide them." Belief in free speech as a principle assumes that good and right arguments will win out every day in an open public forum.

That assumption is false. Things like racism aren't motivated by rational arguments, so they cannot be cured through a rational tool, like free speech. Racism stems from fear, hate, and deeply embedded cultural tools. You can't "cure" racism through argumentation. Maybe, maybe, you can make people less racist in person -- but on an anonymous forum like Reddit, not a chance.

The world is less racist now than it was in the past. What mechanism do you posit for this?

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#312

Post by arkh »

freehunter wrote: post #202
9HZZRfNlpR wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not American but I've been told the word nigga is not the n word. Do I have a wrong impression about it? I'm surprised a bit because the mainstream music is filled with the word nigga but also the n word. Isn't it workings against the idea of not using these words?

With an "a" the word can be a source of pride and community for black Americans, which is why it's used so commonly in black music. Non-black Americans are not commonly accepted into this community, so when non-black Americans say the word it's considered very rude. With an "er" on the end, it's almost always a racist term. Either way you spell it, it's pretty much only acceptable for black Americans to say it.

> Non-black Americans are not commonly accepted into this community, so when non-black Americans say the word it's considered very rude.

Isn't it somewhat racist?

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#313

Post by fzeroracer »

berrynice wrote: post #196
lordlimecat wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit is saying "We stand for free speech" and then later saying "the best way to deal with toxic and hateful viewpoints is to censor and hide them." Belief in free speech as a principle assumes that good and right arguments will win out every day in an open public forum.

>Belief in free speech as a principle assumes that good and right arguments will win out every day in an open public forum. This is demonstrably not the case. Just look at the chans.

Hell, we can look at Voat and Gab as well for example of sites where absolute free speech as a principle has failed to result in any sort of good outcome.

Conveniently these sites are ignored or handwaved away or are somehow only because of censorship.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#314

Post by tastroder »

conradfr wrote: post #263
tastroder wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but when you justify giving abhorrent statements like that a platform with perspective, please keep in mind that this absolute definition of free speech is not reflected in the whole world. Posting something like that in Germany would likely get you at least some sort of lawsuit and from my "perspective" that's a good thing. We as society can certainly discuss where the specific line is that needs to be crossed…

"that's a good thing" because it's effective of because you don't agree with it so it makes you feel good?

I see this one limit of free speech as a good thing because I agree that it limits the harmful effects we would otherwise have in our society. We're literally talking about limiting the influence of people and their symbolism that stands for killing people because of their religion, denying the holocaust and similar. Especially in light of the German history that strikes me as pretty reasonable. Just like we don't need nazis recruiting at our schools (which is a thing), we don't need normalization of white supremacist propaganda on mainstream social media.

I'd feel better if we lived in a society where we wouldn't have to lead this discussion in the first place but since that's just not the case education and limiting propaganda seems like a good way to go.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#315

Post by lopmotr »

joeyrideout wrote: post #25

An emergent ethical concern keeps bugging me in these situations. Of course, private companies reserve the right to refuse business and services to whomever they want. In a healthy society this is no problem. But if we slide towards a dystopian future where Big Tech is basically an oligarchy governing important chunks of society without due process and the democratic checks and balances we would expect from a governi…

> Of course, private companies reserve the right to refuse business and services to whomever they want. In a healthy society this is no problem.

Did you notice that you just said that civil rights laws prohibiting racial and sexual discrimination are wrong and that the US is an unhealthy society because of them? Perhaps you do believe that, which is fine, but if you don't, then be careful making bold statements with a scope wider than what you're really thinking of. It sounds grand and important to make a general declaration of what's right and wrong, but the reason it sounds grand and important is because it carries so much meaning. If you don't really mean all of it, then it's more honest to stick to the specific concept you do want to say.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#316

Post by Starknaked »

DeusExMachina wrote: post #29

It "worked" only if the definition is "it removed it from Reddit". As the article mentions, these people did not just disappear or change their mind. They just moved to more obscure places, where they can continue and be evem more motivated, because now they have been censored. And you might still consider this to be a satisfiable definition for "it worked". Out of sight, out of mind. Except that, these people are no…

This "cult like" division of people and ideas is rife throughout reddit. Subreddits where reasonable objections get downvoted out of sight and preaching to the choir gets upvoted to the top reinforcing those beliefs.

It ruins the whole point of reddit. The mods are very biased on some subreddits that aren't even based on extreme ideas and they have so many unnecessary rules they can lock any thread they want for any reason just because they don't like it.

Reddit has become a cesspool for discourse. There are a couple of good subreddits but that's because they are based on discussion (e.g /r/casualconversation)not the subject of discussion.

Many subreddit don't want reasonable discourse. They want a safe space full of "yes men" that fall in line with and reinforce their beliefs.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#317

Post by TKWasRight »

bgilroy26 wrote: post #187
9HZZRfNlpR wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not American but I've been told the word nigga is not the n word. Do I have a wrong impression about it? I'm surprised a bit because the mainstream music is filled with the word nigga but also the n word. Isn't it workings against the idea of not using these words?

Both ____a and ____er are the N-word and should not be said by non-black people

> ...should not be said by non-black people

I disagree...people of all ethnicities can say any word they like whenever they want...there might be social consequences, but there isn't anything inherently wrong with saying a word

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#318

Post by ta2542938 »

sagichmal wrote: post #36
DeusExMachina wrote: post #29

It "worked" only if the definition is "it removed it from Reddit". As the article mentions, these people did not just disappear or change their mind. They just moved to more obscure places, where they can continue and be evem more motivated, because now they have been censored. And you might still consider this to be a satisfiable definition for "it worked". Out of sight, out of mind. Except that, these people are no…

> It "worked" only if the definition is "it removed it from Reddit". As the article mentions, these people did not just disappear or change their mind. They just moved to more obscure places, where they can continue and be evem more motivated, because now they have been censored. What about all of the new people who would have more easily stumbled into those cesspools, but now have to take quite a bit more effort, an…

[dead]

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#319

Post by untog »

klez wrote: post #147
untog wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn't where radicalised people go. It's how people get radicalised in the first place. Both Reddit and YouTube are general purpose sites. Very, very few people go on there to discuss the e.g. racist beliefs they already have. But the algorithms on these sites ends up exposing people to extreme views - there are many, many examples out there of people watching an innocuous video on YouTube only to immediatel…

> Germany has outlawed Nazis since the end of WW2 and guess what... they haven't taken over again Counter to that, Italy has a provision in its Constitution that forbids the reconstitution of the fascist party and now we have at least two that declare themselves as such (and have a few seats in the parliament), and one that, despite not being explicitly fascist, has more or less similar ideals and methods, has the re…

Right. My point was that the OP implied a correlation between censorship and the rise of politics bring censored, my answer was that there isn't really any correlation, there are plenty of examples that go both ways.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#320

Post by tfolbrecht »

It was never a question if top down rules on speech work, it's if it was a desired. Reddit is the beige wall of community. My experience is choosing between echo chambers, marketing, or ghost towns.

"Thousands of communities, endless conversation, authentic human connection." Would that mission statement be more true for Reddit, Tumblr, Image boards, IRC channels, random internet forums? and the conversation is boring, its feels just like tech Twitter where everyone has to make sure they thoroughly vet their posts for the sake of their future and avoid getting slam dunked on. At least it's usually up and down arrows and ban hammers instead of verbal assault.

Please convince your communities to abandon ship to self hosted, more intimate communication platforms.

Post reply on HN