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

231–240 of 407 posts

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

#231

Post by jlos »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #141
argv_empty wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subs I've heard about banning were echo chambers dedicated to the idea that "this group of people I don't like ought to be [starved|exiled|thrown from helicopters|raped|enslaved]" and such things. If that makes you think the policy is "right leaning = bad, left leaning = good," that says some pretty nasty things about the modern right, doesn't it?

Ah, that's the crux: racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct. For me personally, the echo chamber on both sides is enough to keep me far away from both /r/politics and /r/The_Donald. For example, you cannot say anything positive about Trump on /r/politics. Nothing. There was a screenshot showing that there were 231 negative articles posted and zero positive articles. It's lite…

>> From what I've studied of history, the climate today is similar-ish to 1920's Germany.

In what respects? As far as I can recall, the US did not just move from a monarchy to a democratic republic 15 years ago as a result of a revolution after loosing a world war.

I think the populist discontent behind Trump is real and concerning, but Pre-WWII Germany and current day US are very, very, different places. I think its fair to request that if you wish to make a parallel with Nazi Germany, you substantiate the claim with specific historic evidence.

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

#232

Post by validationerror »

untog wrote: post #112
Pigo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at /r/politics right now, or any day of the week. Good luck finding one article that isn't about how Trump is literally Hitler. Whether you agree with it or not, I don't see how anyone can say it doesn't have an agenda.

If a group of users come together and upvote content they individually agree with, is it "an agenda", or is it "consensus"? Unless I missed something, there's nothing inherent in /r/politics that requires it to be a dispassionate collection of links that represent all sides of the political spectrum. Don't get me wrong, it's a pit of human misery that I've long since removed from my subreddit list, but it's what user…

It's agenda, specifically agenda set by the moderators in /r/politics, who have created the current far-left & anti-Trump circlejerk by banning conservative and right-wing posters.

I've been using Reddit for over a decade now and while in the first couple of years it was totally possible to discuss even politically incorrect topics in most subreddits, over the past years you get banned for all kinds of nonsense simply because many of the moderators are a sensitive bunch and very biased. I'd say it started to get really bad in that regard about 5 years ago and has increased exponentially during the last US election.

Try having a discussion about genetics, race and intelligence, crime statistics, feminism and "women's issues", sexism or something of that order on Reddit these days - it's downright impossible, no matter how civil the discussion being held is or how much you back your arguments up with scientific studies and facts. In every mainstream or larger sub that's not specifically meant to be "politically incorrect" you'll get banned for "bigotry" or "racism" or "sexism" or other such nonsense if you don't agree with the popular leftist narratives. In some of the right-wing oriented subs you get banned for being a "cuck" or such nonsense.

Entering the mainstream has largely ruined Reddit as a discussion platform as far as I'm concerned. I only engage in the programming / tech related subs these days.

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

#234

Post by hiram112 »

fhood wrote: post #132
hiram112 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's strange, but I've never considered Reddit a cesspoll . The fact of the matter - and this is why Reddit is successful - is that it has lots of unique subs and a pretty decent voting system which pushes trolls to the bottom, often collapsed. But if I want to really see what these people are writing, I am free to browse any sub, sort by controversial , and expand the collapsed threads. Win - Win. Hacker News, OTOH,…

Sure, but you used to be able to just browse the front page. Try looking at the reddit frontpage from five years ago and comparing it to right now. And yeah, there are good subreddits but not very many of them are highly active.

Can you clarify? I tend to use mobile and I have a /r/all (which I never use) and which is the Reddit's defaulted top subs, but I can browse my own 'front page' which seems to be a nice mix of my subscribed subs and popular posts. It's a decent compromise.

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

#235

Post by abiox »

alexanderstears wrote: post #120
ebbv wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your "right leaning" is another person's hate speech. There's no onus on these privately owned web sites to be your definition (or mine) of "politically neutral." If you don't like them start your own platform or use a different one.

>There's no onus on these privately owned web sites to be your definition (or mine) of "politically neutral." You're right. However when there are copyright violations on Reddit, they claim it's a platform and they're not responsible for the content on it - ultimately the users are responsible. And then the courts agree and decide that ultimately the violation rests with the user and not with the platform. However, a…

> At some point of restriction, they're completely [...]

seems to me that there is no "completely" unless they literally screen and evaluate every single post before accepting them. until that point's it's all matters of degree.

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

#236

Post by zimpenfish »

ema wrote: post #225
zimpenfish wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The spillover is very real, just not on the same site. Which is good - concentrate the hate speech into a single place and then take it down.

How would that help? It's not exactly rocket science to open up yet another reddit clone for the untouchables afterwards.

Sure but a registrar / hoster that has just closed one hate site isn't going to let someone spin up another immediately. And soon enough they'll be out of options.

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

#237

Post by Razengan »

Any other non-Americans just fed up with this peurile black-and-white, Left-vs-Right tribalism that all discussions of US politics have seemingly devolved into over the last few years?

It’s like watching a bizarre caricature of some dystopian satire.

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

#238

Post by 52-6F-62 »

Spivak wrote: post #213
abiox wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you sure it's true that Trump's entire political franchise has had zero good ideas? there was dropping the tpp... maybe. that's probably good, but i have mixed feelings. anything else?

He/His administration negotiated a some positive trade deals with China that people who work in foreign trade seem to be happy with.

I think that remains to be seen. I don't recall any word of him signing any deals with them. He claims they pledged to spend "billions" on weapons and other contracts — that seems to be all we've heard so far.

I'm contrasting that with (my) Canada who has been actively signing with China since the first rumblings of trade discord with the US.

Not saying it's impossible or not true, but I'm wary. That weird angry screaming he did at his bizarre presser the other day was not overly convincing. If it was anybody else, I would have sworn they were on uppers of some kind...

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

#239

Post by ohyes »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #141
argv_empty wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subs I've heard about banning were echo chambers dedicated to the idea that "this group of people I don't like ought to be [starved|exiled|thrown from helicopters|raped|enslaved]" and such things. If that makes you think the policy is "right leaning = bad, left leaning = good," that says some pretty nasty things about the modern right, doesn't it?

Ah, that's the crux: racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct. For me personally, the echo chamber on both sides is enough to keep me far away from both /r/politics and /r/The_Donald. For example, you cannot say anything positive about Trump on /r/politics. Nothing. There was a screenshot showing that there were 231 negative articles posted and zero positive articles. It's lite…

The viewpoint is slightly different.

> Racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct.

This isn't about correctness.

The viewpoint is:

Racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you support them, you must be evil and desire harm to others, at very least indirectly.

Even if the racists/misogynists of the world were 'correct' I wouldn't want to live in world where we legitimize that. And that's why a lot of us reject him and his policies wholesale.

Saying "well he's right about free trade" (I don't believe this, but as an example) undermines the rhetorical context of fighting something much worse than bad economic policy.

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

#240

Post by AlexC04 »

cxzdyn wrote: post #93
empath75 wrote: post #79

Reddit is swarming with Russian bots and they still have a whole network of white supremecy and various hate subs, operating both out in the open and ‘quarantined’.

Is it really easier to believe that Russian bots are behind the lion's share of this content rather than other westerners?

Is there a difference between writing the content yourself and upvoting fringe content with 1,000 fake accounts while suppressing the inverse with the same?

The fringe is emboldened and encouraged and given an artificial air of legitimacy. The challenge or alternative viewpoint is suppressed.

It is still psychological warfare and the key point isn't really the individual composing the post.

Though in all fairness - based on the articles about the IRA and the experiences I've had I do think that that they have individuals posting and writing their own content.

(for those that haven't read about the Internet Research Agency yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency)

Post reply on HN