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

121–130 of 173 posts

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

#121

Post by [deleted] »

schwartzworld wrote: post #114
ip26 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!"

When most people describe Judaism this way they are only thinking of Ashkenazi Jews. My family comes from eastern Europe. We are not the same race as Ethiopian Jews. Nor do we have the same food, music or culture any more than a Christian from Mexico and a Christian from China. The idea of race is deeply flawed and riddled with contradictions. it has no real meaning in terms of genetics.

[deleted]

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

#122

Post by whytaka »

salmon30salmon wrote: post #20

More accurately would be to say Reddit reports 18% of hate content moved to a different platform. This would be akin to saying "salmon30salmon saw a reduction in hate content when he stopped attending hate group meetings". While I appreciate any attempt to reduce hate, it isn't really something to cheer in this case. The goal is to reduce hate, and pushing people further into the fringes doesn't do that. Now instead…

> Essentially, Reddit etc. doesn't make people hate more, the internet just exposes the hate that already existed.

I don't know if we can say this without debate. Certainly people have fears that could be stoked into hate, but it's the stoking that matters. The only reason propaganda exists is because it works.

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

#123

Post by NoSorryCannot »

convery wrote: post #74
zalkota wrote: post #2

The other 82% is /r/politics

They'd never remove that though. Come to think of it, a lot of the banned subreddits were anti a lot of the politics that regularly get upvoted to the frontpage [0]. So looks more like a political purge. A selection of banned subreddits: r/CampusConservative r/HateCrimeHoaxes r/rightwingcomics r/rightwinglgbt r/Nationalism r/DebateAltRight r/GenderCritical r/blackcrimestatistics r/againstdiversity r/Holodomor r/Expos…

It strikes me that having a duality of political groups like this doesn't mean they both have equal legitimacy or deserve equal platform.

American conservatives have pretty eagerly woven prejudice into the ideological fabric of the party. Similarly the party seems willing to promote or at least enable blatant criminality.

They made their socially-regressive bed and now they can lie in it. "Fiscal conservatives" who don't see themselves in the rest of the picture would be right to feel disenfranchised.

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

#124

Post by specialp »

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.

I thought we are trying to stop hate for characteristics someone has no control over (sex, sexuality, race, gender, disability, nationality). I think any "punches" thrown at a group that was just born that way is not fair and the direction should not be a factor. Shouldn't someone be judged on their character and thoughts, not their biology or circumstances? If you aren't doing that then you aren't being genuine for stopping stereotyping and hate.

This includes "majority" populations and those more privileged. We shouldn't give hateful or blanket statements for them as they never decided to be that way. Putting entire groups of people based on some trait they were born with on blast is wrong.

Also the direction is a slippery slope too. "Well yes I can direct blanket negative/stereotypical/hate statements against Indians because I myself am a disabled, trans minority" ad-infinitum.

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

#125

Post by john-shaffer »

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".

How are landlords not a minority? Are 50% of people landlords? (Asking seriously - I don't understand what definition of minority is being used here.)

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

#126

Post by antiterra »

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".

The problem is that a significant chunk of the community believes that it's not hate speech but simple hyperbole in response to uni-directional injustice.

It's easy to string match, bans/deletions can be instant and abrupt. They see the quick removal of their post and compare it to what they perceive as genuinely hateful posts that stay up because the post cleverly avoids violations that are easy to include in content policies.

Check out the "men are trash" question here https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/10/3/20895119/facebo...

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

#127

Post by antiterra »

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.

My point is more that prudent and pragmatic judgment is nearly impossible, if your goal is to be seen as a neutral platform for a large collection of communities.

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

#128

Post by john-shaffer »

specialp wrote: post #124
james-mcelwain wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I thought we are trying to stop hate for characteristics someone has no control over (sex, sexuality, race, gender, disability, nationality). I think any "punches" thrown at a group that was just born that way is not fair and the direction should not be a factor. Shouldn't someone be judged on their character and thoughts, not their biology or circumstances? If you aren't doing that then you aren't being genuine for…

> I thought we are trying to stop hate for characteristics someone has no control over (sex, sexuality, race, gender, disability, nationality).

Some of use are, but we seem to be losing.

> Shouldn't someone be judged on their character and thoughts, not their biology or circumstances?

This is considered racist now. This was explained to me by a friend that if a person wants to be seen as a "$race man", than not seeing him that way would be offensive.

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

#129

Post by eggsnbacon1 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #106
eggsnbacon1 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

its pointless to bikeshed this. People did the same to defend TD and other crazy communities. Most of the posts are fine, but occasionally blatant sexism will make the front page and mods don't do anything about it, or even encourage it by putting the post in "real believer" mode where opposing viewpoints can't exist. Same as TD.

Best example I've seen https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/hzis4w/a_n...

"A message to all men" . Basically telling "all men" their opinions aren't valued or wanted on the sub. Wonderful. And it hit the Reddit front page. Imagine a "mancave" sub on Reddit with mods saying women's opinions don't matter and aren't welcome here and shit like that. It would be banned immediately, probably after making 5 o'clock news

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

#130

Post by antiterra »

recursivedoubts wrote: post #92
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…

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

Just to clarify, I see this as a problem that may be impossible to solve.

For me personally, I think that "kill all men" or "all men are trash" can have a harmful impact (particularly on boys) even when stated as hyperbole in response to systemic misogyny.

Post reply on HN