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

Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 407 posts

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#21

Post by chisleu »

godman_8 wrote: post #4

Yah, except they're hosting /r/The_Donald which has been confirmed to violate Reddit rules. Just like Twitter they cherry pick for $$$.

This is untrue, and repeating it loud and often doesn't make it true.

The moderators of The_Donald work with reddit to try to keep the subreddit in line. They do not allow anything that violates the site wide rules, but that doesn't mean low ranked comments on low ranked threads don't go unreported.

I'm not saying there aren't a lot of assholes in The_Donald. There are. Some of them have valid political points to make, but most are just trolling and shit posting which was the entire point of the subreddit to begin with IMHO.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#22

Post by nathanaldensr »

josefresco wrote: post #15
Helmet wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about r/The_Donald violates the rules other than going against your political preferences? There are left-wing sub-reddits that openly call for armed revolution, violence against the "bourgeoisie" and the police, destruction of property, etc; but I'm sure they're OK to exist, right?

Ah yes, "whataboutism" - it's almost like we're on The_Donald right now!

The question is perfectly valid. It is implied that Reddit will assign some level of consistency to these policies. If they don't, that shows they may be hiding their true intentions.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#24

Post by josefresco »

infodroid wrote: post #5

Someone needs to put a stop to this bad meme... On social media, advertising is not an endorsement of the content. This might be the case for traditional media, but social media is different. Advertisers and platforms need to recognize the difference, to accept the lack of control over user-generated content as a feature, and to push back on unfair criticism. But perhaps their real goal is increasing their control ov…

"This might be the case for traditional media, but social media is different. "

Please explain. Unlike "traditional social media" Reddit is organized into "like-minded" or themed mini-communities. Advertisers certainly know the type of content posted to these communities.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#25

Post by YCode »

bitL wrote: post #6

So what are reasonable Reddit alternatives that don't act as outlets of banned subreddits? Once you start banning stuff left and right, it's a slippery slope, making large groups of population feel weird/forcing them to learned hopelessness. It would be better instead to train some ML for content classification, then set user preferences about what triggers them, and then warn users that some submission might disturb…

I wonder if they couldn't institute some scheme where they flag subs as "dirty" or some more politically correct term when those subs contain offensive but legal content.

This would allow showing advertisers a checkbox when they post an ad that asks whether they are okay with showing their ad on a dirty sub.

Pitch it to advertisers as you'll reach more people for the same cost, but your content may be shown by user posts that some may consider offensive.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#26

Post by ch4s3 »

malvosenior wrote: post #8

I would love to see a statement from Reddit/Twitter... explicitly stating that they will remain politically neutral. There’s certainly content that should legally be taken down, there’s probably content that isn’t advertising friendly and could be taken down. It seems like these companies are being very slanted in their evaluation of the latter category. Basically right leaning = bad, left leaning = good. All I want…

While I imagine there is some bias among reddit's staff, because they're people and we all have bias, I don't think it's as simple as "right leaning = bad, left leaning = good". No one there is going to give you a hard time for discussing the influence of Catholicism on the views of William F. Buckley. Even Ann Coulter is in bounds, but the vile far-right 4chan garbage that some corners of reddit spew has no place in a civil forum.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#27

Post by sandworm101 »

malvosenior wrote: post #8

I would love to see a statement from Reddit/Twitter... explicitly stating that they will remain politically neutral. There’s certainly content that should legally be taken down, there’s probably content that isn’t advertising friendly and could be taken down. It seems like these companies are being very slanted in their evaluation of the latter category. Basically right leaning = bad, left leaning = good. All I want…

>> content that isn’t advertising friendly and could be taken down.

That is a dangerous road. Today they might be taking down otherwise legal content with which advertisers do not want to be associated. Tomorrow they are being asked to remove content with which advertisers disagree. Suddenly my 1000-word rant on the evils of Microsoft's latest OS is being taken down. Rather than being a free space for discussion, reddit will have become just another moderated online forum where nothing of note ever happens.

Reddit's power comes from negative posts. Facebook and twitter makes headlines when people 'like' things a billion times. They lack the capacity for users to express anger objectively. Reddit makes headlines when it empowers 50,000 gamers to dump on EA. Advertisers like EA should be be paying for such feedback. They evidently already listen to it.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#28

Post by Cuuugi »

josefresco wrote: post #15
Helmet wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about r/The_Donald violates the rules other than going against your political preferences? There are left-wing sub-reddits that openly call for armed revolution, violence against the "bourgeoisie" and the police, destruction of property, etc; but I'm sure they're OK to exist, right?

Ah yes, "whataboutism" - it's almost like we're on The_Donald right now!

You shouldn't berate someone for essentially asking to back up claims.

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#29

Post by geofft »

infodroid wrote: post #5

Someone needs to put a stop to this bad meme... On social media, advertising is not an endorsement of the content. This might be the case for traditional media, but social media is different. Advertisers and platforms need to recognize the difference, to accept the lack of control over user-generated content as a feature, and to push back on unfair criticism. But perhaps their real goal is increasing their control ov…

Wait, what makes it different? There's the old adage that half of your advertising money is wasted, you just have no way of knowing which half. Why would you willingly spend it on putting your ads next to content you don't want to associate with your brand? It seems exceedingly likely that this is the half that isn't productive.

(This is also what I don't get about the Twitter fake-account-number business and the YouTube videos-targeting-children business - if I were an advertiser, I would have no interest in spending money advertising to bots or to young children. I would prefer to pay for ads in front of 4 million users I want to reach than in front of 5 million users, 1 million of whom I don't want to reach. Why are advertisers not pushing back hard on inflation of account metrics?)

Re: Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers

#30

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

Helmet wrote: post #10
godman_8 wrote: post #4

Yah, except they're hosting /r/The_Donald which has been confirmed to violate Reddit rules. Just like Twitter they cherry pick for $$$.

What about r/The_Donald violates the rules other than going against your political preferences? There are left-wing sub-reddits that openly call for armed revolution, violence against the "bourgeoisie" and the police, destruction of property, etc; but I'm sure they're OK to exist, right?

Probably referencing a bestof post that popped up a week or two ago. Someone found like 30 ban worthy comments.

Only think is, the vast majority were 1 point comments, some were negative, and the only one that had considerable upvotes was an anti-muslim comment on the thread about a terrorist attack (if someone's going to overreact, that's when).

Post reply on HN