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)

#361

Post by apasserby » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 4:39 AM UTC

lazyjones wrote: post #64

antihero wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it turns out that yes, voat and gab.ai are both filled with the utter dregs of society. Is this "free speech" positive hangout a wonderful paradise full of intellectuals and idealists? No, just a bunch of racist conspiracy nut trash.

> And it turns out that yes, voat and gab.ai are both filled with the utter dregs of society What does this say about the validity of the questionable study linked here that applauds "deplatforming" and only examines a few short-time consequences? Great success, sending more people from reddit to their own hate platform that will grow and exploit synergies among groups of particularly toxic people.

Thoughtful and intellectual conversations require good moderation, this is hardly a new concept.

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

#362

Post by steveeq1 » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 5:50 AM UTC

narrator wrote: post #321

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…

They aren't really echo chambers. I routinely harass these people for their racist views and they don't ban me. Their Hitler worshipping is really ludicrous. It's a lot of fun to flame someone on the Internet without worrying about getting banned for hurting people's feelings. I think the false belief that the mainstream has gotten everyone into is "racism=nationalism". The stupid people on the right bought into that…

Where the hell is this "hitler worshipping" going on in reddit?

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

#363

Post by bgilroy26 » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 5:50 AM UTC

TKWasRight wrote: post #317

bgilroy26 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How do you distinguish between actions that have negative social consequences and actions that are inherently wrong?

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

#364

Post by pygy_ » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 7:03 AM UTC

sdinsn wrote: post #235

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…

You seem to be making some assumptions: (1) Users that went inactive on Reddit went somewhere else, and (2) Users that didn't go inactive didn't go anywhere else. I don't think either of these assumptions are true. The fact is, we don't have a way to track users between platforms.

You can't track them, but you can make educated guesses.

There's a finite amount of time in a day.

So for 1) they must have been doing something during that time they were off reddit. They could have picked up cooking or moved to a non-hating online platform. If so, that's a win anyway.

For 2), that's possible, they would have to do it by reducing another activity. Given that reddit is designed to eat all your free time, I find it unlikely.

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

#365

Post by arkh » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 7:27 AM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #348

arkh wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 bitc…

Specifically this part : "Non-black Americans are not commonly accepted into this community"

Also the fact people keep writing "the n word", "the word but with an a" feels like communicating with children. Just write nigger or nigga and be done. The sky won't fall. You can't analyze or criticize something you can't name. Especially when forbidden words change every 10 to 15 years because people will just start using other common ones as insults. A simple example would be how "despite", "kings" and "queens" were used to mock black people (not just north-american one) on r/cringeanarchy (which ban must be why this was reposted).

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

#366

Post by pygy_ » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 7:27 AM UTC

SkyBelow wrote: post #342

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?

Brain connections are like cowpaths the more they are traveled the deeper they become entrenched.

Having them practicing other thoughts will let their brain gradually collect the garbage (unused synapses go weaker and are ultimately pruned over time).

Some people may end up ruminating those thoughts anyway, but I'd expect them to be a minority (the propensity for long-term rumination is linked to mental issues that are somewhat prevalent, but not that much).

Removing the social validation will help most people withdraw from the problematic thoughts.

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

#367

Post by pygy_ » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 7:28 AM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #128

pygy_ wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Page 9 has a graph of the activity before/after the ban, and the drop in activity (in post/day) matches the number of accounts that became inactive. If those users found other outlet for hating, they didn't do so by reducing their reddit activity.

Did those include the inactive account, or is it the rate of activity of those that showed signs of life?

RTFP?

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

#368

Post by 0815test » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 7:42 AM UTC

intertextuality wrote: post #355

Amezarak wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Niggard has no etymological, denotational, or connotational connection to a racial slur. It’s a little astounding to me that it’s a bad word now that people are afraid to even type because it sounds sorta like one until you get the whole word out.

I didn't even know of that word, so I don't know it's history, but niggardly is another similar word, or snigger. Etymologically they may be unrelated but come on. Every single time you say one of those words we all know what word people are going to think of instead, as they're way too close in spelling and pronunciation. It doesn't help those words are not commonly used at all either. So although they technically m…

> Etymologically they may be unrelated but come on. Every single time you say one of those words we all know what word people are going to think of instead

But surely this must hold all the more strongly for the "a" word? Even if you're hearing it in a music video as a reference to a social ingroup, it basically amounts to propping up one of the vilest racial slurs around, which just seems self-defeating.

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

#369

Post by jonathanstrange » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 9:01 AM UTC

lopmotr wrote: post #330

jonathanstrange wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people who are banned always think this is about them, as if they were the centre of the universe? Banning people is not for their benefit, to somehow make them better people, keep them from forming radical views or nonsense like that. It's solely for the benefit of the remaining users and the forums themselves. That means you have to strike a balance between banning/removing too much or banning/removing too f…

So you're on the side of the baker in the gay wedding cake case? The difference here is that that was one small shop among many so the customers aren't completely screwed. Social media is dominated by a small number of huge companies so that if they ban you, then you lose access to far more than just one private business. You can't just cross the street and use the other almost-as-good Reddit or almost-as-good Twitte…

> So you're on the side of the baker in the gay wedding cake case?

In general, no. The analogy is deeply flawed. You ban people on forums because of their actions, and you delete posts because of their content. That's just social interaction. In contrast to this, the baker made it 100% clear that he singled these customers out because they were gay and not because of their actual behaviour at the baker shop. They behaved well like any other customer. If they had spit on other customers, shouted annoying gay parade songs with megaphones, or incited for violence against straight people, then the baker would have had all rights to kick them out of his shop. Only, they didn't do anything like that.

I hate having to explain this to you, but the golden rule of netiquette is that you should only say online what you would also be willing to say aloud, so that everyone else can hear you, to a bunch of strangers in a bar. It may get heated at times and barkeepers are more or less resilient to abusive customers, but at some point they will kick you out of their place if you don't stop annoying their customers. Moreover, no barkeeper is obliged to host a bunch of Nazis, Stalinists, or pedophiles, and most places will use their house right to expel those toxic groups.

Social networks have the same right and use it in the same way. That is part of their responsibility, which is indeed higher the more users they have, as you put so eloquently. Just like the barkeeper, they have a responsibility to protect their main user base against morons and notorious troublemakers.

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

#370

Post by luckylion » Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 10:08 AM UTC

pygy_ wrote: post #367

luckylion wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did those include the inactive account, or is it the rate of activity of those that showed signs of life?

RTFP?

I asked because I looked for that information and didn't find it by searching. As you had apparently looked into it more, I had hoped that you knew where that was stated. Sorry for asking for clarification.