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

101–110 of 173 posts

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

#101

Post by Daishiman »

moksly wrote: post #31
chromedev wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, definitely /r/conspiracy.

I’m a sucker for conspiracy theories, like the Bermuda Triangle. Aliens abducting cows and lizards living inside the Queen. I don’t believe in any of it, but I’ve just loved that stuff since I was a kid. So I actually used to follow /r/conspiracy, but I stopped around the 2016 election when everything started being about American politics. Not sure what happened, but it went from “the lone gunmen” to “angry American…

It was taken over as a tool for political propaganda. Political operatives realized that and have been refining this strategy.

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

#102

Post by meowface »

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…

>I always find these sorts of discussions sorely lacking an understanding of The Tolerance Paradox.

I can't possibly speak for Popper, but I suspect that he'd disapprove of intolerance from any group towards any other group. Let's not tolerate threats or double standards of any kind, whether it's a man defending that he said "kill all women" sarcastically or a woman defending that she said "kill all men" sarcastically. One can acknowledge that a man saying it should be taken more seriously (for a variety of reasons) while also acknowledging that the acceptance of generalized vitriol towards groups based on at-birth traits shouldn't have directional weighting. This is a blind spot and form of implicit bias I find many well-meaning progressives fall into.

Also, although it doesn't necessarily apply here (since most would agree talking about killing groups of people shouldn't be tolerated), I almost always find that people who bring up Popper's paradox of tolerance tend to wield it like a cudgel to draw arbitrary and absolute lines as they see fit.

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

#103

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

meowface wrote: post #96
recursivedoubts wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those of you who don't think in who/whom, note this comment well. There are many, many people who think this way.

>For those of you who don't think in who/whom What do you mean by this?

It's a common meme in some circles, reflecting a claim that facially neutral rules against hate speech depend implicitly on who's speaking and to whom it's directed.

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

#104

Post by OminousWeapons »

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…

> Are advertisers leaving reddit?

I can't speak to if they are leaving Reddit, but they are absolutely leaving other social media platforms such as Facebook as well as traditional media platforms for exactly this reason.

> Are people leaving reddit to a "nicer" platform?

I don't have this data at scale. Anecdata I have suggests that most people I know have been turned off by the sheer level of vitrol which appears on Reddit these days.

> What type of legal liabilities is reddit being subject to?

Regulatory risk in the form of being made responsible for user submitted content which they really don't want to be. If even a subset of hateful users go on to commit violence in the real world and it turns out that they fermented their ideology on Reddit and Reddit did nothing, it could renew calls by lawmakers to make site operators responsible for user submitted content. Such a regulatory change could potentially take down the entire business.

There is also a smaller, related business continuity risk from Reddit's providers. Look at what happened to 8chan. In response to 8chan not regulating hate speech, CloudFlare terminated their service and no US provider would touch them with a 10 foot pole. it took them 3 months and a total rebrand to get back up. While Reddit is a much larger entity, they are not immune to this risk.

Booting these users gives them plausible deniability at little cost and also allows them to make a stronger case to lawmakers if questioned.

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

#105

Post by happytoexplain »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #90
antiterra wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I don't read the parent as advocating the opinion that the people subjected to the "less dark" form shouldn't consider it a kind of hate speech or shouldn't feel offended by it. The context is moderation, and why it makes sense to treat the cases differently - that doesn't mean simply always allowing one and always disallowing the other. The point is that prudent and pragmatic judgement is necessary.

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

#106

Post by Someone1234 »

eggsnbacon1 wrote: post #93
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?

Its clearly what they do. The best example, a default sub TwoXChromosomes is full of blatant hate speech against half the species and its touted as a progressive bastion when its a different variation of The Donald.

Can you provide recent examples?

On their front page right now:

- A post about finishing shampoo and conditioner at the same time

- Celebration of a black female CEO

- Discussion of abortion

- Discussion of Women's only gyms (pros/cons/benefits/etc)

- Discussion about marketing vis-a-vis unhealthy body image

- Inappropriate boss in a meeting

None of those posts are even about men, let alone "hate speech against half the species?" So the emphasis is definitely on you to show that this is a popular usage of the sub.

Subs don't get removed for a scattering of hateful comments, the moderators are expected to deal with those. Subs get banned because their popular purpose is against Reddit's rules or their moderators are unable/unwilling to enforce the rules.

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

#107

Post by Nitrolo »

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.

Here's a post breaking down a few details of the ban wave:

https://www.reddit.com/r/redditsecurity/comments/idclo1/unde...

As you can see a big majority, over three quarters, of banned subreddits had less than ten users, and 99% had less than 5000 subscribers.

It's very possible that the other 82% are distributed over the larger, more popular subreddits which are not encouraging hate speech. As an example, if someone posted antisemitic content on r/dataisbeautiful, that might be counted towards those 82% but that is not a reason to ban the whole subreddit.

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

#108

Post by sukilot »

james-mcelwain wrote: post #67
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?

Punching up vs punching down is a super important distinction to make in these kinds of policies.

When punching down it's important to dress it up so it looks like punching up. Attack the innocent who look like the guilty because the guilty are too hard to reach.

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

#109

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

happytoexplain wrote: post #105
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I don't read the parent as advocating the opinion that the people subjected to the "less dark" form shouldn't consider it a kind of hate speech or shouldn't feel offended by it. The context is moderation, and why it makes sense to treat the cases differently - that doesn't mean simply always allowing one and always disallowing the other. The point is that prudent and pragmatic judgement is necessary.

That doesn't really change my perspective. I'd be very frustated if a moderator told me "well, we generally don't allow hate speech, but let's be prudent and allow it when it's targeted at you".

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

#110

Post by meowface »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #103
meowface wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For those of you who don't think in who/whom What do you mean by this?

It's a common meme in some circles, reflecting a claim that facially neutral rules against hate speech depend implicitly on who's speaking and to whom it's directed.

I think that meme/claim is indeed substantiated in many cases. It's a form of implicit bias. Implicit biases are very culturally-mediated and can exist from any individual or group towards any other individual or group. I don't know if reddit staff suffer from that bias, but it's evident some people in this thread do.
Post reply on HN