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

251–260 of 407 posts

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

#251

Post by tomp »

GeneralTspoon wrote: post #169
alexanderstears wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you define "Islamophobia"? It's a serious question, I don't disagree that there's some prejudice against Islam on the western right. However, a lot of the top posts are ultimately factual claims. Sweden has a rise in grenade attacks and sexual assaults, British police looked the other way when Muslim Men formed a pedophilia group, most terrorism is motivated by Islam, and there are Islamists whose purported goal…

Could you cite some sources for the above claims? Snopes says the increase in reported sexual assaults in Sweden could possibly be to do with the definition of "sexual assault" changing in 2013[0] Regarding the Paedophile ring, I haven't read any material on it - but there have been several high profile non-Muslim paedophilia cases in Britain, and it would be unsurprising to me if police didn't turn a blind eye at so…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit...

> The failure to address the abuse was attributed to a combination of factors revolving around race, class and gender—contemptuous and sexist attitudes toward the mostly working-class victims; fear that the perpetrators' ethnicity would trigger allegations of racism and damage community relations; the Labour council's reluctance to challenge a Labour-voting ethnic minority; lack of a child-centred focus; a desire to protect the town's reputation; and lack of training and resources.

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

#252

Post by beepboopbeep »

ThomPete wrote: post #229
beepboopbeep wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purposeful gutting/disorganization of major federal agencies and operations, the discrediting of the white house's statements, the undermining of existing federal law (see: explicitly sabotaging the ACA), then there's, of course, aiding and abetting enemies in order to win an election.

What exactly is it you mean these things show? Sounds mostly like you are complaining about his form than anything he has actually done. Is it worse than Bush administration who started a war?

I just don't know how else to tell you that these things are all very bad. They, to me, should appear bad at face value. We clearly differ in the perception of the world at a fundamental level.

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

#253

Post by tomp »

beepboopbeep wrote: post #221
tomp wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... what were the actually bad things that actually happened because of Trump (i.e. because of something he did)? In my view, much like with Brexit, the fearmongering is way exaggerated compared to reality.

The purposeful gutting/disorganization of major federal agencies and operations, the discrediting of the white house's statements, the undermining of existing federal law (see: explicitly sabotaging the ACA), then there's, of course, aiding and abetting enemies in order to win an election.

So... typical politics or unproven allegations. Got it. Not like... starting wars (like 4 previous presidents have done) (although he's still got time, I'll give you that).

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

#254

Post by pjc50 »

philipodonnell wrote: post #184
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Are you sure it's true that Trump's entire political franchise has had zero good ideas? You're not wrong in that its important to hear both sides, but its also important to hear an appropriate amount from each side corresponding to the acceptableness of the ideas. Minority voices are important. When we find ourselves in the majority, we should be responsible for ensuring that those minority voices have a way to be…

> Trump is a minority voice. The election results and polling are clear on that. So the question becomes more about how much weight we, as the majority, should give to those ideas.

I think this is actually irrelevant; it doesn't matter whether someone's ideas are in a minority, only whether they are good ideas, bad ideas, and the proponent is interested in constructive engagement.

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

#255

Post by moojd »

sintaxi wrote: post #73
Fnoord wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least you know what you get when you visit /r/The_Donald. Is it better to have a cesspit bubble/sandbox than having none?

I don't see why people care so much. Its just another echo chamber that can be completely ignored. Clearly the benefits of free flow of information outweigh the drawbacks so its best to just accept the drawbacks.

I filtered out /r/the_donald forever ago and I'm only reminded of it when a new anti-trump echo chamber spams its way to the top of /r/all. Now I have dozens of those filtered but its hard to keep up.

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

#256

Post by tomp »

fhood wrote: post #228
tomp wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... what were the actually bad things that actually happened because of Trump (i.e. because of something he did)? In my view, much like with Brexit, the fearmongering is way exaggerated compared to reality.

I think the major fear is the precedent he sets for divisive politics in the future. He also may cause the US to loose ground to China as far as foreign influence goes, but the first point is what worries me.

I think the politics were divisive before. In fact, I'd claim that Trump's election is the result of divisive politics.

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

#257

Post by 52-6F-62 »

moojd wrote: post #222
supercanuck wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between /r/politics and /r/the_donald, is that positive comments about Trump on /r/politics get down voted into oblivion but still are capable of being read and seen, on /r/the_donald, they simply get removed and the user is banned. To imply that those two are equal, is disingenuous.

Also, one is sub meant for general political discussion and the other is clearly meant to be an echo chamber for one side's ideas. /r/the_donald is awful but at least it doesn't pretend to be impartial.

But it is impartial in that you won't be removed for discussion in good faith, though you may be disagreed right to the bottom.

Spiteful trolling usually gets down-voted to hell as well (thankfully).

A little too often I see hyperbolic vitriol and shitposting persist, and though I don't mind the odd gag, it's not warranted. It clogs the thread as much as anything else.

That subreddit is impartial in itself. It's consensus of the participants, not censorship, if unpopular ideas aren't promoted whichever way they lean.

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

#258

Post by dijit »

vidarh wrote: post #144
dijit wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, I think you can tell them they're wrong and list the reasons why $proposed_ideology is better, but talking down to people and considering murder for believing something is absolutely abhorrent behaviour. FWIW, I hate the left and the right movements in equal strides, the left want me to feel terrible for being born a straight white male in a western post-colonial society, the right want the poor and under…

I agree strongly with your first paragraph, and disagree strongly with your second. Ironically to me, your second paragraph illustrates why your first paragraph matters: As someone belonging firmly on "the left" your description does not fit me at all, at least not in my view. The problem, then, when someone wants to go to extremes in treating anyone over their perceived ideology is defining what it means to belong t…

It's incredibly unpopular today not to buy into even the most extreme left. You can tell by the fact my comment, which was entirely neutral is being downvoted.

Twitter is rife with absolute venom if you even suggest a term such as "mansplaining" is sexist.

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

#259

Post by pjc50 »

tomp wrote: post #195
te_chris wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not propaganda if he's actually THAT bad. I'm being deadly serious. He is not a normal candidate and claiming that it's biased because there are lots of true stories about a bad person is a feature of our media, not a bug! It says more about Trump's fans that they're willing to overlook his egregious failings and attack and undermine quasi-impartial institutions just to point score than it does about bias.

So... what were the actually bad things that actually happened because of Trump (i.e. because of something he did)? In my view, much like with Brexit, the fearmongering is way exaggerated compared to reality.

Unconstitutional religious discrimination by executive order: https://theintercept.com/2017/10/21/donald-trump-muslim-ban-...

Simple failure to do the job: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics...

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

#260

Post by michaelt »

nilkn wrote: post #139
jackmott wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should anyone remain politically neutral no matter what? What if the Nazi party came into power? Impartiality can impart political bias if the facts happen to lean one way or the other, as they will from time to time.

Open platforms for discussion are actually one of the best ways to prevent something like the Nazi party from coming into power. And if the Nazi party did come into power, you would not expect there to be impartiality in any major discussion forums in the nation. Example: A lot of folks are flabbergasted at /r/The_Donald, but I've always contended that that subreddit exists and developed into its current culture prec…

  Open platforms for discussion are actually one of the
  best ways to prevent something like the Nazi party from
  coming into power.
I used to think that, but my views have become more complicated given allegations like [1]

I agree that public discussion is a powerful tool for changing people's political opinions - but if I think I'm reading a discussion between your peers when I'm actually reading a discussion between two Kremlin trolls, it puts the powerful tool in the hands of people who don't have my best interests in mind.

It's a tough problem to solve - most of the 'obvious' solutions like real name policies I think come with a lot of downsides.

[1] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3kvvz3/russian-fa...

Post reply on HN