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

Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

maximumeffort.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 210 posts

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#181

Post by fleddr »

hemogloben wrote: post #165
fleddr wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just learned this week that an extended family member is trans. Not a single sign of gender dysphoria throughout her entire 21 years of life. 6 months of university and surgery is pending. The social contagion is so plain to see but I guess talking about it is a taboo.

Obviously your family, but… What’s more likely? That a person of a marginalized group _hid_ aspects of themselves and lied about about themselves to prevent harassment. Or a person goes to college for 6 months and decides to get major surgery because it is socially popular? Just because YOU didn’t see the signs doesn’t mean they didn’t and flippantly using your interpretation of their story as proof of a “social cont…

What harassment? What marginalized group?

She's an ordinary girl. Privileged in every single way: wealthy, good looks, good brain. She's never showed even the tiniest sign of being uncomfortable in her body. Not in toys, clothing, choice of friends, just zero signals at all. She does not live in an environment that is in any way conservative or oppressive, nor religious.

You don't have to take this lack of signs from me, it's from her mother whom lived with her for 20 years in a row. The change comes out of the blue, is drastic, and closely aligns with her new environment and friends. So yes, social contagion is very much on the table if not the most likely factor. There's nothing controversial about social contagion as a mechanism, most people's behaviors and mindsets are drastically influenced by culture.

You seem to take my comment as judgmental, but it's coming from empathy. It's her choice and she'll live with the consequences, not me. But when there is an inexplainable spike in young girls changing body parts and making irreversible choices, and seemingly only in big city universities, then I have questions. Because I care about them, and I will never apologize for that.

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#182

Post by [deleted] »

brhsagain wrote: post #175
tptacek wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That law is an OTC anti-fraud measure. The Constitution has something to say about the ability of Congress to nationalize and impose its own speech controls on private websites that happen to become popular. Congress also doesn't get a say in who performs the Super Bowl Halftime Show, despite its immense audience.

If we’re going to assert the inalienable right of free speech, then arguably free speech is such an important cornerstone of society that we should think long and hard before letting any company have such influence in that sphere to begin with. To me the big glaring central point here is that everyone uses big tech platforms. It’s just a fact of life. If you tell people, sorry, I don’t use Facebook, I use some wonky…

[deleted]

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#183

Post by swayvil »

Consider the vague line between "free speech zone" and "dictated speech zone". It isn't like the dictatorships advertise the fact. And even ostensibly "free" zones tend to have that charming "voting" system, where too much deviation from the popular view means censorship.

So you could be in the middle of a conversation, thinking it's a free exchange of opinions, when it's actually an insidious patchwork of censorship and manipulation.

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#184

Post by altairprime »

searealist wrote: post #163
tptacek wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His whole comment history and the warnings he received are right there for everybody to read. But, no, I'm sure you're right: it's all an elaborate plot, because BayesianWitch threatened to upend the YC hegemony.

He had no warnings for ages, then every comment was a warning. Obvious pressure from above for having an unpopular ideology.

Being courteous, thoughtful, and taking best-faith interpretations are key aspects of the ideology that is mandatory under this site’s guidelines. This is a wildly unpopular ideology at other sites.

If a user or mod noticed them breaking those guidelines over time, and they continued doing so after being repeatedly warned, then they absolutely would have been banned for their ideology.

Otherwise, I don’t think anyone really cares how disagreeable their viewpoint is, so long as they’re courteous and contributing while expressing it (and it’s not derogatory, hate speech, etc).

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#185

Post by qball »

i_like_apis wrote: post #25

I find Reddit mods are particularly power crazy. Most of them seem to be doing it for power rather than for love of the content of their sub. There is so much personal bias and posts removed for personal reasons, or just to flex. I’m not speculating on the reason, but it’s definitely like that.

>Most of them seem to be doing it for power rather than for love of the content of their sub.

In any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people.

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself.

It is the Iron Law of Bureaucracy that the second group becomes more powerful than the first- and this is why the simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies. Because, by that law, it is.

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#187

Post by terfcomment »

nemothekid wrote: post #98
digdugdirk wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone is trans, or cares about trans people, its entirely personal to them. The "issue" isn't always a political one. Yes, the mod in question may be forcing their personal worldview on a subreddit, but the OC's phrasing of the overall situation seems completely accurate.

> The "issue" isn't always a political one. It's political because JK Rowling actively donates to enact political change for anti-trans legislation. It isn't the case that the recent hysteria is because JK Rowling dislikes trans people.

She's a feminist whose activism includes fighting for the rights of women and girls to have female-only spaces and services. This isn't an anti-trans position.

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#188

Post by tptacek »

brhsagain wrote: post #175
tptacek wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That law is an OTC anti-fraud measure. The Constitution has something to say about the ability of Congress to nationalize and impose its own speech controls on private websites that happen to become popular. Congress also doesn't get a say in who performs the Super Bowl Halftime Show, despite its immense audience.

If we’re going to assert the inalienable right of free speech, then arguably free speech is such an important cornerstone of society that we should think long and hard before letting any company have such influence in that sphere to begin with. To me the big glaring central point here is that everyone uses big tech platforms. It’s just a fact of life. If you tell people, sorry, I don’t use Facebook, I use some wonky…

Who's asserting that "inalienable right"? You don't have the inalienable right to speak on any property I own. If you walk up to my porch or into my lobby and start yelling about ivermectin, I'm going to kick you the hell out, no matter what you think your rights are.

The actual right you have is spelled out in the Constitution: that Congress shall make no law abridging your freedom of speech. That's all you get. Thankfully, the framers did not add a law granting you the right to force me to amplify your speech with my own resources.

Get a blog! The very worst people on Earth have managed to keep blogs running.

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#189

Post by yellowapple »

brhsagain wrote: post #169
yellowapple wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The story changes when these websites are massively popular, have majority market share in their space, have taken massive amounts of funding, etc. Not really. The only substantial change is that getting thrown out of such a large and all-encompassing diner is a lot less convenient. The fundamental reality is still there: no website ( maybe unless it's owned by your government, and even then) no matter how large is…

I know that that is the current state of the law. I’m not disputing that there is currently no legal framework to force Reddit to allow content. I’m arguing the “ought” rather than the “is” here. I disagree with the philosophical stance that simply because Reddit is a private website, they are entitled to control the content as they want and that no level of qualitative difference between Reddit and the average websi…

In that case, this hinges on whether websites having the right to moderate themselves as they see fit does indeed have negative externalities on society - and, even if so, whether those negative externalities outweigh the harm of dictating how websites moderate themselves. Perhaps we differently value the rights to speech, press, and association - all of which such a regulation fundamentally infringes.

Notice that I ain't mentioning corporations or individuals here, because that piece fundamentally does not matter; an individual could create a website used by billions, and a corporation could create a website used by a single person (not to mention that there are countless organizational structures beyond just corporations - especially once you go beyond the constraint of what's legally recognized). What matters is the size of the audience, and "you have such and such rights unless you're popular enough to have any tangible influence on society at which point the State will dictate what you're allowed to say or not say" doesn't sit well with me.

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#190

Post by MockObject »

searealist wrote: post #157
tptacek wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trust between YC and Dan regarding HN is probably the whole story about moderation here. Again: people think YC exerts a bunch of influence in how HN is moderated, and I doubt it exerts much influence at all. Dan is running this place the way he'd run it if YC didn't exist.

Then explain why yummyfajitas was banned. Pressure from above.

I'd never heard of him, so I looked up his history. His banning causes me to reconsider participation in this forum at all. And it's sad to see the quality of those 2017 threads compared to today. So thoughtful, so many citations.
Post reply on HN