Live data from Hacker News

Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

techcrunch.com

271–280 of 413 posts

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the kind of content you just stumble upon. If they sought that out they'd just as well have sought out other forums, so I find it moot that they happen to find racist content they found agreeable on reddit that further radicalized them. It's like the incels, they're just looking for a circle jerk. The reason I feels strongly about it is open discussion with racists have led to conversion away from white su…

It is very, very easy to just stumble upon stormfrontesque content on reddit. Reddit tries to keep it off the default frontpage and /r/all these days but they're not entirely successful, and it's not unheard of for the comments on a picture of a cute bunny to turn into a conversation about how people of some race are responsible for all of the problems in the world.

Seeing a conversation go south into that territory is a far cry from stumbling upon a full-fledged white supremacist sub.

I've seen plenty racists on reddit, they're still around post-censorship.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#272
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, Reddit isn't responsible for, and couldn't possibly begin be responsible for, hate in the whole world. They banned it on their site, and it cleaned up their corner of the world, and they're happy that the place they have control over has less hate. That's not bullshit. Bullshit is saying "well, we can't possibly get rid of it, so may as well let it stay where ever it shows up."

Bullshit is saying "We stand for free speech" and then later saying "the best way to deal with toxic and hateful viewpoints is to censor and hide them." Belief in free speech as a principle assumes that good and right arguments will win out every day in an open public forum.

Have yet to find a single defense for free speech that wasn't a 'slippery slope' fallacy at it's core.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#273
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the kind of content you just stumble upon. If they sought that out they'd just as well have sought out other forums, so I find it moot that they happen to find racist content they found agreeable on reddit that further radicalized them. It's like the incels, they're just looking for a circle jerk. The reason I feels strongly about it is open discussion with racists have led to conversion away from white su…

It very much is. All it can take is a single comment by someone on a popular sub to have someone click their profile to read more, stumbling upon more of the same affirming content.

In that instance the content is being deliberately sought out. What's to prevent them from searching online for more reclusive forums like stormfront? Absolutely nothing.

EDIT: since I can't reply to you, yes, by definition, it's seeking it out.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#274
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It very much is. All it can take is a single comment by someone on a popular sub to have someone click their profile to read more, stumbling upon more of the same affirming content.

In that instance the content is being deliberately sought out. What's to prevent them from searching online for more reclusive forums like stormfront? Absolutely nothing. EDIT: since I can't reply to you, yes, by definition, it's seeking it out.

Seeing a supremest message in a comment, and clicking their name, is seeking it out? Jesus then, we’re screwed.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not true, we disagree here on HN on many topics like software freedom, is Apple a monopoly, is Tesla autopilot good or bad etc but persons that disagree with my view points can disagree without becoming toxic. For me toxic comments are comments that are int the first place illogical, use false facts or speculation as truth, use personal attacks or aggressive language, generalize one or a few data points to th…

Fair enough, the implication doesn't go both ways. My point was that all things considered "toxic" are just things that are not being agreed with. Of course, things can also not be agreed with without being considered "toxic".

You're right that people are more likely to use words like 'toxic' when they disagree. But your generalization goes too far, and the cases where it fails are important. I moderate posts on HN all the time whose views I personally agree with. That's probably the most important capacity a moderator needs. Some of those posts I would definitely call toxic.

To pick an example that won't upset any people (ok, not many people), if someone shows up in Common Lisp threads on HN with the sort of chauvinism that destroyed comp.lang.lisp, that's toxic and I'm going to moderate even if I share their views about Lisp. This is a real example btw. I found https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9813527, but there have been a bunch of cases.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#276
post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how do you define right or wrong ?

> So how do you define right or wrong ? Easily: what is right improves the human condition and reduces suffering. What is wrong does the opposite. Let me short-circuit your next question, which is surely "how do you measure what improves the human condition, and what is suffering?" We have to use our judgment, which we are graced with by virtue of being moral agents. This is subjective, like anything worth doing, whi…

So we agree that it is subjective.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#277

It "worked" only if the definition is "it removed it from Reddit". As the article mentions, these people did not just disappear or change their mind. They just moved to more obscure places, where they can continue and be evem more motivated, because now they have been censored. And you might still consider this to be a satisfiable definition for "it worked". Out of sight, out of mind. Except that, these people are no…

I agree and I find it dismaying that so many of the users here are holding cowardice in confidence as a means to erode racism.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Racism and white supremacy are not valid viewpoints.

Which means censorship vectors get to wrap things they want censored as "racist". Soviet censorship vectors were able to wrap dissenting viewpoints as "counter-revolutionary" or "bourgeois" without regard for the consistency of content to the wrapper.

No, sorry. Racism is pretty damn clear cut.

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is more likely, that you'll be able to convince a true believer to convert, or that a true believer well be able to convince someone on the fence? Putting racists on open platforms stops the second, and if you're so interested in changing their minds, nothing is stopping you from searching them out to do so. Daryl Davis went I to people's homes and met them in person to befriend and sometimes "convert" them. It…

Why would the opposite necessarily be "on the fence"? This is both a false dichotomy and false analogy. The vast majority of users aren't "on the fence", meaning the more likely person on the other end of the argument is avidly anti-racist. What if said "on-the-fence" individual visits stormfront? Who's to argue against it there? No one. > nothing is stopping you from searching them out to do so. Except there is. Rac…

> Except there is. Racist forums are walled gardens. They're safe-spaces for white supremacists. They don't invite dissent.

This applies equally to a subreddit. Except now the walled garden has a funnel, since people can accidentally get exposed, but can't see any dissent.

> It's more fragile than that, in terms of logical merit (there is none). I think the exposure makes it more vulnerable.

You're assuming racists will play fair. That's naive. To frame this a different way, I assume that racists will act in their own self interest. If Reddit wasn't useful to them, they wouldn't use it. But here they are (were). Clearly they think it ads value. They've put a lot more time and energy into analyzing their best path forward, and it apparently involved Reddit. Why should we freely give them that ammo.

> What if said "on-the-fence" individual visits stormfront? Who's to argue against it there? No one.

But getting to stormfront is much, much harder than getting to /r/ conspiracy (which has almost a million subs), hanging out for a while, and seeing someone go off about gassing the Jews or the censorship of data on human skull size comparisons, clicking on their profile, and seeing that they also post to /r/sig_heilo_there or greatapes or whatever it is.

And that person was already subscribed to conspiracy, so the ideas that the man is keeping the truth about Jews/affirmative action/the imminent subjugation of white people. It is infectious, despite your disbelief. And then as you are more radicalized, you get invited to a private discord, or to hang out with the cooler people on stormfront. So now this person who, on their own would never have ventured onto stormfront (because who does that) is a member. Radicalization is a process. And if you ever run in to try and stop it, you'll be banned, because they control the subreddit.

Let me rephrase what you're advocating for: allowing white supremacists to freely propagandize will make it easier to prevent the spread of white supremacy. Do you believe that to be true in general (say for extremist religions, or even for nonextremism?)

Re: Study finds Reddit’s ban of its most toxic subreddits worked (2017)

#280
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It "worked" only if the definition is "it removed it from Reddit". There are plenty of people who thought that it wouldn't work to that extent, either. They claimed that allowing a subreddit for toxic topic X at least had the benefit of segregating proponents of X; and that if such subreddits were banned their inhabitants would infect the rest of Reddit. But that didn't happen. I remember when posts from r/FatPeople…

>Then FPH was banned, and you know what, we didn't see it metastasize elsewhere, we just saw many fewer FPH-style posts, which I'd say is a good thing. But what we DID see, for a while at least, was a lot of people sympathetic to that subreddit arguing in any way they could think of that the ban was either inconsistent, not needed, unfair or wouldn't work. But what do you know, by and large that content kind of just…

I'd argue that FPH was by and large a reaction to that whole "Fat Acceptance" fad that also happened to fade away for the most part. Everytime a member of that "movement" got a lot of attention you would see a lot more FPH related posts, likely from people venting their disapproval.

So it wasn't necessarily the ban that got rid of FPH but rather the "Fat Acceptance Movement" losing steam.

Post reply on HN