Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017) • Hacker News Board

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

#341

Post by modriano » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 11:55 PM UTC

pmarreck wrote: post #94

sagichmal wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I would like to see evidence that “deplatforming” actually reduces hate globally instead of simply moving it elsewhere, because I haven’t seen any, and until then this is simply an unfounded belief (i.e., “bullshit”)

Echo chambers like these incubate hatefulness, provide positive feedback to individuals who embrace the hate at the core of these subreddits, and set up strawman representations of "enemy groups" to immunize members against rational discussion. I used to identify as an "anarcho capitalist" and it was largely because I discovered r/Anarcho_Capitalism. People praised me for arguing against left anarchism, socialism, communism, or anything besides poverty-is-a-moral-failing style capitalism. Eventually, the community embraced overt racism and I tried to find another community to replace r/Anarcho_Capitalism, but I could not find one. About 3 years after leaving that echo chamber, I went back and read through my comments in that sub and I was mortified by the twisted logic I used to justify starving the impoverished of government benefits and services.

My story is anecdotal, but I can't believe that it's a rare occurrence, because that's basically the mechanism that underpins all fringe organizations based on a shared false worldview. You need people to constantly validate and reinforce that false worldview, or reality will smash that worldview. Barring a subreddit may push a fraction of the active subredditors to another platform if one exists, but the marginally attached subredditors will just fail to follow and the hold that echo chamber had will fade as the echos grow fade to silence, and they won't catch anywhere near as many new people.

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

#342

Post by SkyBelow » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 11:57 PM UTC

pygy_ wrote: post #65

Collective response to those who claim that it pushed those users to other platforms: Only marginally. If you read the paper ( http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf ), you can see that ~20% of the users of the banned subreddits became inactive vs 10-15% in control communities. The difference for users that deleted their account is of the same magnitude. The users that stayed had a dramatic drop i…

>The users that stayed had a dramatic drop in hate speech.

They could have a drop based on the belief that it is being punished. Is there a study on what impact this would have on their beliefs? Does it weaken them, or does it make them believe that others are scared of the truth and thus encourage their beliefs more?

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

#343

Post by learc83 » Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 11:59 PM UTC

0815test wrote: post #150

intertextuality wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nerd, geek, and freak are nowhere near as utterly vile as the n word. They are in completely different leagues. The first step to understanding the reclamation is understanding just how offensive the n word was and is today. And the culture that surrounded it. For non-Americans this topic is a difficult issue to get into because it involves unpacking and understanding so much history and culture.

> Nerd, geek, and freak are nowhere near as utterly vile as the n word. They are in completely different leagues. Yes, which supports what I said, contra what GP said. You can't just take such a vile word with such vile connotations attached and "rework" it harmlessly like you could with "geek"-- that's just not how human psychology works, and an IAT or such would easily bear this out. You'd have to wait for the whol…

Nerd and Geek weren't reworked harmlessly overnight. There was a very gradual change in connotation over the years. It took 50 years for nerd to move from completely unsympathetic epithet to being "reclaimed". 40 years ago a sympathetic person would never have said "he's a bit of a nerd".

Nerd started to be "reclaimed" in the 80s and 90s, and there was a time period were it was still used pejoratively by non-nerds while being used positively by nerds.

"Yankee" by the way still has very strong negative connotations in the south particularly among older people. It's a very good example of a word that is still used by outsiders derogatorily, but insiders don't find it offensive at all.

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

#344

Post by ausbah » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 12:03 AM UTC

Smithalicious wrote: post #249

thosakwe wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this extremely hard to believe. I disagree with white supremacists, anti-vaxxers, and people who defend sex offenders. I also disagree with think that JSON is more readable than YAML, that C++ is a good language to teach beginners, and that Apache is more user-friendly than nginx. Only one of these groups is "toxic" to me. But just "people I disagree with" is not an accurate representation as to why I find the…

I don't think "causing harm to the general public" is at all a good metric to decide "toxic". I've had to deal with more trouble caused by people who insist on using Apache than I've had caused by white supremacists, and I don't think I've ever met someone who "defends sex offenders" (as a general position). To begin with, "causing harm" is still essentialyl subjective. An anti-vaxxer wouldn't think they're "causing…

"Causing harm" is subjective until you can demonstrably show that whatever activity is causally linked to increased harm towards some group of people.

Yeah an anti-vaxxer won't think they're "causing harm", but they are. They're the reason we've had a major resurgence in measles cases for the first time in 20 years.

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

#345

Post by denkmoon » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 12:16 AM UTC

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…

Googling "8chan" is not a high bar to entry. Don't even get started on the information that is shared through private discords and other smaller private communities. It isn't hard to find the community for you in the age of the internet.

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

#346

Post by toss1 » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 12:32 AM UTC

dondawest wrote: post #238

toss1 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it specifically neither confirmed nor contradicted that assertion, as it was out of scope to track to other venues, or address the larger problem of the entire society. But it DID show that providing cesspools does increase the behavior of swimming in cesspools, AND show that moderation has an effect. Providing mainstream venues for anti-social behavior increases that behavior and harms society. Sure, it ma…

Smoking is a great example because NOW ITS A SEXUAL FETISH TOO When you make something fringe you invite people to fetishize it. All you do is up the ante. Sure, some normies will stop being racists because there’s no longer a place to be racist. But other guys will fetishize racism and shoot up synagogues. Is the benefit of subtracting normies from racist movements worth the cost of creating people who fetishize rac…

and sure, it is so rare that it's virtually unheard of; e.g., I'd never heard about smoking being fetishized in the context of it being discouraged (& while I'm not exactly Mr. Club Scene, I do work to keep aware of trends).

It isn't only subtracting the normies from the racist movement, it is also preventing the medium-core bigots from 'practicing', honing, and exaggerating their racism.

If we are to attribute a cause to the rash of current racist murders lately, they are clearly NOT from Reddit recently banning two subs, but far more likely from the entire environment being pushed towards more open racism & bigotry from the chair of the POTUS, to a major Faux News source, to rampant online environments like 4Chan, Voat, etc. Far more likely that these enhanced cesspools and the more approving political environment are the cause than merely one source going offline (particularly since they started occurring before they went offline).

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

#347

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 12:57 AM UTC

Veen wrote: post #66

zarkov99 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The danger here is this distinction between the wise protectors of "easily influenced people" and the dumb asses that need protection. Who decides who is who? I do not think this is always clear cut. People who seek the role of censor are almost always the wrong people to be entrusted with that power. And historically we have many examples of ideas that were thought to be ridiculous, dangerous, etc, that turned to be…

Nothing is ever clear cut, but a lack of perfect knowledge and the possibility of unintended consequences are poor reasons to refrain from acting when the consequences of not acting are dire.

> Nothing is ever clear cut, but a lack of perfect knowledge and the possibility of unintended consequences are poor reasons to refrain from acting when the consequences of not acting are dire.

Sounds like a thinly veiled version of the Politician's Syllogism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism

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

#348

Post by freehunter » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 1:02 AM UTC

arkh wrote: post #312

freehunter wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not entirely sure what "it" you're referring to.

If you're saying that it's racist because only one race is allowed to say the word:

No, I don't think so. It's not really a racial thing, it's a race and a culture. Not all black Americans say it, not all black Americans agree with it, and not all black Americans can get away with saying it. It's a kinship thing. My wife's female friends can say "you're such a bitch" but no one else would be able to say that to her. My coworkers and friends call me a nerd, but if someone I didn't know called me a nerd I would take it as an insult. They haven't earned that right. It's an offensive word unless there is a kinship developed where I know you're not saying it in a hurtful way.

If you're saying it's deemed racist for non-black Americans to say the word, then yes. Saying it with an "a" would be deemed less racist and more of a very rude faux pax by many. Others may see it as very racist. Also depends on the context it's being said in.

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

#349

Post by meko » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 1:12 AM UTC

the8472 wrote: post #178

clucas wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably isn't obvious from my posts, so I'll put it here explicitly: I'm not pro-censorship. I think ideas should be out there. My ideal world is one where there are the "big" sites with millions of DAU generally keep racist content (or at least the really nasty stuff) off their platform, but there are plenty of little sites that "keep the dream alive" so to speak. A lot of people aren't going to be willing or ab…

> I think ideas should be out there. My ideal world is one where there are the "big" sites with millions of DAU generally keep racist content (or at least the really nasty stuff) off their platform, but there are plenty of little sites that "keep the dream alive" so to speak. But reddit is already compartmentalized. Subreddits for fringe ideas are those "plenty of little sites", especially when they are delisted from…

Which is the only thing that happened. Being quarantined' on reddit just means you don't show up in r/all.

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

#350

Post by XaoDaoCaoCao » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 1:29 AM UTC

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #278

XaoDaoCaoCao wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which means censorship vectors get to wrap things they want censored as "racist". Soviet censorship vectors were able to wrap dissenting viewpoints as "counter-revolutionary" or "bourgeois" without regard for the consistency of content to the wrapper.

No, sorry. Racism is pretty damn clear cut.

So let's say I purposely choose to avoid living in areas that don't have a large percentage of a certain minority on the basis of very alarming statistics.

Am I an evil racist for putting my individual life and my family's over the ideal of equality?

Note I've been homeless before and that experience exposed me to how people act without a system of 24 hour media propoganda to skew the view of such behavior. It doesn't mean that I paint bona fide individuals with stereotypes but when I'm dealing with aggregates...well call me an evil racist. I'd invite you to put your ideology to the test in a situation where it gets stretched to the point of counter-factual absurdity.