11–20 of 401 posts
There's enough fuzz in the vote counts that no one would notice, and you wouldn't have any controversy on your hands.
So, if people don't vote the way the Reddit admins want, the Reddit admins will replace the voters. That is definitely a way to get only the things the Reddit admins want upvoted, upvoted. But it seems to me to be the opposite of free discourse. I can sympathise with the admins, because a) there are a lot of terrible, toxic people b) there are a lot of bot armies. The latter is probably easiest to combat, but it is s…
I hate how these conversations always devolve to "well they're just trying to control what everyone says!" as if it's black and white and not shades of gray. No, they're trying to prevent assholes from spilling over into people's real lives, because the alternative is becoming 4chan. Where all that "upvoted" content results in ACTUAL PEOPLE BEING KILLED.
I hope most people on HN don't agree with the train of thought that websites have no duty to their fellow man to not normalize hate speech. "Where does it stop" - it stops at not doxxing people and not calling for people to be murdered, per their TOS.
Eventually reddit will go the way of digg and fade into irrelevance.
The last I heard they still weren’t profitable.
So, if people don't vote the way the Reddit admins want, the Reddit admins will replace the voters. That is definitely a way to get only the things the Reddit admins want upvoted, upvoted. But it seems to me to be the opposite of free discourse. I can sympathise with the admins, because a) there are a lot of terrible, toxic people b) there are a lot of bot armies. The latter is probably easiest to combat, but it is s…
Freedom of speech during an era of rampant 4chan-troll white supremacism is like freedom of association during COVID. When the exercise of a freedom puts others in danger, it is fitting and proper to take that freedom away.
Not sure what makes sense.
Eventually reddit will go the way of digg and fade into irrelevance.
Reddit admin message: > Your account has been suspended from for breaking the rules. Your account has been suspended for 3 day(s). >> You recently upvoted a post or comment that was determined to be against our policies. Abusive content is not acceptable on Reddit nor is engaging with it. Please be thoughful about the content that you interact with. Interestingly nothing in the Reddit policies seems to mention voting…
They officially announced this three months ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/f8y9nx/sprin... > Users who consistently upvote policy-breaking content within quarantined communities will receive automated warnings, followed by further consequences like a temporary or permanent suspension. We hope this will encourage healthier behavior across these communities. Until now that has mostly been warnings…
> I’d like to share an update about our thinking around quarantined communities.
> When we expanded our quarantine policy, we created an appeals process for sanctioned communities. One of the goals was to “force subscribers to reconsider their behavior and incentivize moderators to make changes.” While the policy attempted to hold moderators more accountable for enforcing healthier rules and norms, it didn’t address the role that each member plays in the health of their community.
> Today, we’re making an update to address this gap: Users who consistently upvote policy-breaking content within quarantined communities will receive automated warnings, followed by further consequences like a temporary or permanent suspension. We hope this will encourage healthier behavior across these communities.
This seems strange to me. If this content is violating reddit's policies then why don't they ban them? It seems awkward to have this middle ground of "semi-banned" content where users get suspensions if they interact with it too much. Why create these invisible land-mines for users? I imagine it's because banning this content outright would make Reddit admins appear even more biased, or because the content doesn't actually violate any policies but puts off advertisers.
So, if people don't vote the way the Reddit admins want, the Reddit admins will replace the voters. That is definitely a way to get only the things the Reddit admins want upvoted, upvoted. But it seems to me to be the opposite of free discourse. I can sympathise with the admins, because a) there are a lot of terrible, toxic people b) there are a lot of bot armies. The latter is probably easiest to combat, but it is s…
"That is definitely a way to get only the things the Reddit admins want upvoted,"
Feels like a bigoted conspiracy theory. Reddit admins are not a cohesive group of people and this blanket statement hurts.
Your are suspended to comment here.
Please think of the children.
/s
This isn't a ban, it's a 3 day suspension. And we don't know what content was upvoted, or why it was a against Reddit policy. We do know, however, that Reddit indeed has policies about acceptable content, and most of us seem to agree they're fairly reasonable. So I don't understand the use of the scare quotes in the title. Why exactly should an upvote, which is publicly visible approval, be different than a comment?…