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

Reddit reports 18% reduction in hate content after banning nearly 7k subreddits

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 173 posts

Re: Reddit reports 18% reduction in hate content after banning nearly 7k subreddits

#81

Post by happytoexplain »

antiterra wrote: post #68
chromedev wrote: post #19

Anyone remember them saying in their ToS that hate speech is okay as long as it isn't against a group considered to be the minority?

To be fair to their intentions, the the cultural meaning is different based on social context. This is why successfully policing content on a global or even national social media site is nigh impossible. When a woman is recounting frustration at being talked over during a meeting and says "kill all men," there's a non-literal connotation based in a belief in patriarchal suppression. When a man says "kill all women" i…

Well said - while this point is somewhat subtle, I think the real reason most people "miss" it is because of a human tendency to overlook pragmatism in the context of language/communication while engaging in even non-heated ideological battles. I.e. they tend to turn a blind eye to colloquial meaning and real consequences in favor of a bias toward literalism as a bad rhetorical tactic.

Re: Reddit reports 18% reduction in hate content after banning nearly 7k subreddits

#82

Post by happytoexplain »

chrisco255 wrote: post #4

Since there's no objective definition of "hate content", this is akin to them patting themselves on the back for outright censorship based on their own arbitrary definitions.

That doesn't follow. There being no objective definition for a metric does not imply that all subjective definitions are useless metrics.

Re: Reddit reports 18% reduction in hate content after banning nearly 7k subreddits

#83

Post by thunkpad »

antiterra wrote: post #68
chromedev wrote: post #19

Anyone remember them saying in their ToS that hate speech is okay as long as it isn't against a group considered to be the minority?

To be fair to their intentions, the the cultural meaning is different based on social context. This is why successfully policing content on a global or even national social media site is nigh impossible. When a woman is recounting frustration at being talked over during a meeting and says "kill all men," there's a non-literal connotation based in a belief in patriarchal suppression. When a man says "kill all women" i…

I really agree with this. An American Indian friend of mine once said, "It's not like we want another Trail of Tears." Folks who have been beat down know people don't deserve that just for being a certain way.

Now if you're advocating a worldview that carries implicit, targeted violence (looking at you, Neo-Nazis) I think it's a different story. At that point, it becomes a question of what is possible and practical to reduce the overall amount of violence.. even if it means punching someone who wants you dead or subjugated.

Re: Reddit reports 18% reduction in hate content after banning nearly 7k subreddits

#84

Post by nailer »

thunkpad wrote: post #73
chromedev wrote: post #19

Anyone remember them saying in their ToS that hate speech is okay as long as it isn't against a group considered to be the minority?

Wouldn't the difference there be between venting resulting in hurt feelings rather than targeted violence? Reports of genuine, targeted violence against reactionaries are almost non-existent while just a few days ago three trans women were nearly killed while waiting for a cab. If banning r/dropthet (a transphobic subreddit) reduces the amount of eyeballs absorbing phobic talking points that has to be a good thing, n…

> Reports of genuine, targeted violence against reactionaries are almost non-existent

Someone is wearing a MAGA hat. Someone else is wearing a Biden hat.

Which do you think is more likely to be assaulted?

Re: Reddit reports 18% reduction in hate content after banning nearly 7k subreddits

#85

Post by thunkpad »

pietrovismara wrote: post #70
justchilly wrote: post #25

Said differently: "Reddit banned nearly 7,000 subreddits, but left alone the ones that contribute 82% of hate content." That seems like a dismal result, practically an admission that many of the bans were unjustified and/or subs that should have been banned were not.

The last bunch of bans was simply a leftist purge, banning several subreddits that at most advocated violence against landlords, not really a "minority".

Back to coded language to express frustration we go...

Re: Reddit reports 18% reduction in hate content after banning nearly 7k subreddits

#86

Post by kilo_bravo_3 »

james-mcelwain wrote: post #71
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The accusation is in the other direction, that some people aren't being censored despite saying equally obnoxious things. I've seen quite a few popular and non-censored Reddit comments talking about "Rethuglicans", or explaining that huge swaths of the population are irredeemably evil.

Do you have any evidence any sub was banned for the opposite equivalent of "Democraps" or whatever? This feels like a strawman without evidence that people were banned selectively.

They have nothing.

I can cite the recent "Conservative Bigots v. Twitter and others" cases, every single thread of political philosophy from anarchism to totalitarianism in which private property is allowed, and the terms of service that people agree to when using an online resource...

...and all they can do is wave their hands and chant "censorship".

Re: Reddit reports 18% reduction in hate content after banning nearly 7k subreddits

#87

Post by nailer »

ip26 wrote: post #54
niyazpk wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is religion immutable when political affiliation is not?

Race & religion are sometimes deeply entwined, see Jewish. Imagine if Jewish ethnicity was a protected class but Jewish religion was not. How would that even work in practice? "I was not discriminating against the Jews on account of being ethnic Jews but rather on account of their Jewish faith, your Honor!"

That would be reasonable. For example, if someone chooses very orthodox or liberal beliefs (whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish or Atheist) and they clash with your beliefs, you should be able to fire them at will.

Re: Reddit reports 18% reduction in hate content after banning nearly 7k subreddits

#88

Post by thunkpad »

gruez wrote: post #80
OminousWeapons wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the fact that a private entity should be able to censor as they see fit on their own platform, Reddit is a business, it's not a charity. If a subset of users are hurting their business model, driving multiples of other users away from the site, or creating legal liability far in excess of the value the problematic subset generates, then Reddit absolutely should be patting themselves on the back for mitigatin…

>If a subset of users are hurting their business model, driving multiples of other users away from the site, or creating legal liability far in excess of the value the problematic subset generates, is that's what's happening though? Are advertisers leaving reddit? AFAIK advertisers can already decide what subreddits their ads appear on. Are people leaving reddit to a "nicer" platform? What type of legal liabilities i…

Nearly every woman I know who uses reddit doesn't announce their gender. Plenty of my chosen family won't touch it with a fifty-foot pole simply because they're way too likely to run into something that genuinely makes the rest of their day harder.

And, anecdotal as it may be, I think it's interesting to mention these aren't softies either... the thing they all share in common is that they work too long and too hard making ends meet to willfully spend time browsing a site that can go from fun to making them feel very unsafe in the blink of an eye. Sure you can "just get over it" when you read something nasty online. But if you've lived your life in relative fear, it takes a ton of energy to do so.

Re: Reddit reports 18% reduction in hate content after banning nearly 7k subreddits

#89

Post by meowface »

antiterra wrote: post #68
chromedev wrote: post #19

Anyone remember them saying in their ToS that hate speech is okay as long as it isn't against a group considered to be the minority?

To be fair to their intentions, the the cultural meaning is different based on social context. This is why successfully policing content on a global or even national social media site is nigh impossible. When a woman is recounting frustration at being talked over during a meeting and says "kill all men," there's a non-literal connotation based in a belief in patriarchal suppression. When a man says "kill all women" i…

I agree "kill all women" reads and is darker for a variety of reasons, but I don't think either statement should be acceptable. I think a high percentage of people who would say "kill all women" would also reply that they're being non-literal and sardonic, but I don't think that would make it acceptable. Both phrases should trigger human review and a ban, in my opinion.

Even without the literal meaning, vitriol towards gigantic groups of people based on at-birth traits isn't healthy or rational for anyone. (To make the comparison more palatable, imagine a complaint about an ex-romantic partner followed by a frustrated exclamation of "fuck men" or "fuck women", depending on the parties involved. I don't see why either of these statements should be privileged over the other.) I think double standards should be eliminated across the board, rather than tipping the scales so that a side that historically wielded them is now subjected to them.

Re: Reddit reports 18% reduction in hate content after banning nearly 7k subreddits

#90

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

antiterra wrote: post #68
chromedev wrote: post #19

Anyone remember them saying in their ToS that hate speech is okay as long as it isn't against a group considered to be the minority?

To be fair to their intentions, the the cultural meaning is different based on social context. This is why successfully policing content on a global or even national social media site is nigh impossible. When a woman is recounting frustration at being talked over during a meeting and says "kill all men," there's a non-literal connotation based in a belief in patriarchal suppression. When a man says "kill all women" i…

But everyone says "oh you're missing the context" when challenged on their hateful rhetoric, and no targeted group enjoys being told they ought to die. I don't really see why anyone should be allowed to spread hate speech, even if they don't mean it literally or it doesn't "read darker".
Post reply on HN