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

Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 757 posts

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#211

Post by s73v3r_ »

ralusek wrote: post #74
wnevets wrote: post #47

Reddit has zero problem leaving post that threaten the lives of an entire religious group on their frontpage. If they were serious certain subs would be nuked.

You realize that is a perfectly reasonable objective for a site to be a mostly impartial, user-moderated forum, right? I don't consider any view I encounter on reddit to be endorsed by the platform. If people want content moderated with a specific slant, just subscribe to the subreddits that suit your tolerance, there are plenty that are heavily moderated. Personally, I love seeing things that I disagree with on redd…

I think it's extremely patronizing and disingenuous to lump posts calling for the extermination of members of a religious group, or calling for the execution of refuges in with "things I disagree with".

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#212

Post by ralusek »

overthemoon wrote: post #138
ralusek wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that is a perfectly reasonable objective for a site to be a mostly impartial, user-moderated forum, right? I don't consider any view I encounter on reddit to be endorsed by the platform. If people want content moderated with a specific slant, just subscribe to the subreddits that suit your tolerance, there are plenty that are heavily moderated. Personally, I love seeing things that I disagree with on redd…

The parent commenter specifically said "post[s] that threaten the lives of an entire religious group". Hardly comparable to something someone can simply disagree with.

Those are also specific posts, but most of the posters who share the sentiment of the commenter typically advocate for the removal of entire subreddits.

Also, to be frank, I think that posts of that nature are exactly the kind of thing that someone can and should disagree with. Suppression of those beliefs by silencing them just means they are moved away from platforms through which their views can be better contextualized for them. The prevailing attitude that some people are just not worth debating says more about the person who holds that belief than it does about those they're accusing of never budging. I have had my mind changed many times, as well as changed the minds of others.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#213

Post by prepend »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #163
randyrand wrote: post #84

Would it be sufficient for every user to just have client side configurable filters? Or is this movement more about denying "toxic" people a platform to begin with? If it's the latter case, I can't get behind it. Free speech means everyone should have a platform to speak. As society transitions away from using our mouths to using our keyboards, the first amendment implies that speech should be protected on the common…

Filters can work after the fact, but they don't prevent a lot of it to start. As for "toxic", the article is referring to things like /r/CoonTown, or brigades like the one that went after Leslie Jones on Twitter a number of years ago. The people behind those already have a platform to speak: The Internet. They're not entitled to space on another platform like Reddit or Twitter, and they're not entitled to force their…

Coon town is obviously offensive, but easily avoided (ie, not a problem).

I casually followed the Leslie Jones incident and don’t see the problem. The brigading seemed easily avoided by Jones and was actually amplified by media covering how bad it was.

My twitter feed doesn’t show mentions by randos, so Jones should have been able to easily filter out at the client. She may have for all I know.

So both your examples seem easily solved by client filters to not force speech in faces.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#214

Post by cryoshon »

sincerely wrote: post #132
UrukParthian wrote: post #119

Toxic statements = statements from a different political orientation Why are people so willing to embrace Orwellian doublethink? My prediction is that such a sword will do decapitate undeserving people of all political aisles.

The article is largely about removing flagrantly racist content (the subreddits they listed as examples were like r/KKK and r/CoonTown) and various illegal content like bestiality videos. It seems disingenuous to classify these as simply "different political orientation".

agreed. but consider how the people being banned will see things.

i don't suggest we cater to them, just that we realize their way of thinking and reacting.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#215

Post by CaptSpify »

keepper wrote: post #117
_m8fo wrote: post #46

So we've tried: - Real identities (Facebook comments) - Voting and self moderation (Reddit, HN, etc.) - Strong moderation (Reddit, HN) They all result in toxic comments, trolling, an echo chamber,or worse, a complete lack of participation. There's no real solution to this problem. However, if you create consequences or a cost to commenting you'd eliminate toxic comments and trolling at the cost of less participation…

We haven't really tried "real identities". We've come close. Real identities would require verification, which sites like FB only do after the fact. I fear that a huge repercussion of the election issues is that we will get there. A real ID may be required for you to post comments in all websites. And i'm not sure how I feel about that. Reality is that it would drastically reduce comment trolling, if your real identi…

> Reality is that it would drastically reduce comment trolling, if your real identify was viewable and searchable by all you know

Is this true? I've seen various studies saying that the opposite is actually true, but I can't currently find any of those studies. Does anyone have any sources?

EDIT: some sources, though I don't know the strength of their validity:

  - https://techcrunch.com/2012/07/29/surprisingly-good-evidence-that-real-name-policies-fail-to-improve-comments/

  - http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/17/google_plus_finally_ditches_its_ineffective_dangerous_real_name_policy.html

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#216

Post by wizardforhire »

InvisibleCities wrote: post #159
gdubs wrote: post #150

We tend to think we’re more in control of our behavior than we actually are. That is, our brains are operating from habit a large amount of the time, and the idea of the CEO brain consciously deciding our every action is largely an illusion. This is why emergency exit doors must open outwards. People have died in fires in theaters trying to push on doors that said “Pull”. The crash bar on an emergency exit door is wh…

>This is why emergency exit doors must open outwards. People have died in fires in theaters trying to push on doors that said “Pull”. The crash bar on an emergency exit door is what’s known in design as an affordance. Is this true? I always assumed it was because it's pretty much impossible to pull open a door when you are being crushed by people pressing against one another trying to escape.

Yes and recent.

>An inward-swinging door - three times cited as a code violation by West Warwick inspectors and three times replaced by club managers - was blocking the exit closest to the stage.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/02/15/series-errors-s...

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#217

Post by cookiecaper »

devinhelton wrote: post #194
losteric wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really just need better public education, as well as clearer separation between information and entertainment. Facebook/Reddit/Twitter/etc promote a regression towards the mean understanding... viral content reflects and amplifies the "average user's" sentiment and values. Acceptable for entertainment, but inherently prone to misinformation, propaganda, and demagoguery. Education requires valuing subject matter ex…

"We really just need better public education" I agree 100% as long as you put me, or people of my worldview, in charge of the curriculum and personnel.

Yes. In today's age of near-universal literacy, "uneducated" is just a euphemism for views disliked by the the side in control of the education apparatus.

While thought-policing media, schools, churches, and any other possible venue of "indoctrination" may "work" to a superficial extent, it mostly just completely destroys the credibility of your authority and leads to stunning implosion and destabilization. See: the Soviet Union.

Like it or not, you can't just beat "undesirable" views out of people, either with schools or social media moderation.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#218

Post by Tiktaalik »

_m8fo wrote: post #46

So we've tried: - Real identities (Facebook comments) - Voting and self moderation (Reddit, HN, etc.) - Strong moderation (Reddit, HN) They all result in toxic comments, trolling, an echo chamber,or worse, a complete lack of participation. There's no real solution to this problem. However, if you create consequences or a cost to commenting you'd eliminate toxic comments and trolling at the cost of less participation…

Reddit is not actually strong moderation.

Forum communities with actual strong moderation, eg. Something Awful, ResetEra have near zero issues with hate speech, Nazis and other things that reddit has let fester.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#219

Post by Chaebixi »

ssully wrote: post #56
ScipioAfricanus wrote: post #8

It's not that the "trolls are winning", it's that people are allowing the trolls to bother them. Trolls have always existed; it's our heightened sensitivity and inability to just shrug them off or laugh in the face of their obscenity that's letting them "win".

Yeah this is bullshit. Trolls have always existed, but shrugging them off was never a solution. In message boards I used to frequent trolls were suspended without question and banned for repeat offenses. Now when trolls get banned there is an out cry from the troll and those in line with them about censorship and violation of their free speech. The problem is trolls are given too much room to play and speak.

> Yeah this is bullshit. Trolls have always existed, but shrugging them off was never a solution.

> In message boards I used to frequent trolls were suspended without question and banned for repeat offenses.

That must be selective memory, or at least not generalizable: on some pretty major message boards (e.g. Slashdot), trolling became a prominent subculture.

In fact, one of the my major memories of numerous early message boards was that trolling was an integral component of the forum culture. Trollish things would frequently be said and you spotted the newbies and outsiders based on how they responded. As you learned the culture, you'd learn not to get trolled and maybe occasionally troll yourself.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#220

Post by UrukParthian »

sincerely wrote: post #132
UrukParthian wrote: post #119

Toxic statements = statements from a different political orientation Why are people so willing to embrace Orwellian doublethink? My prediction is that such a sword will do decapitate undeserving people of all political aisles.

The article is largely about removing flagrantly racist content (the subreddits they listed as examples were like r/KKK and r/CoonTown) and various illegal content like bestiality videos. It seems disingenuous to classify these as simply "different political orientation".

What's wrong with racism? I spent two years homeless on Skid Row. I will never, ever, move to a black majority neighborhood. That's not "toxic", that's me making an intelligent rule.

It doesn't mean I denigrate my black friends. The ones I know are "salt of the Earth". As in I'd die for them. It doesn't mean I won't hire a black applicant. It might seem impossible but one can adopt general rules and still hold exceptions for corner cases.

Or even (gasp) withhold judgement of individuals until you get a better idea what type of person they are.

Post reply on HN