Reddit CEO Cracks Down on Abusive Content to Protect Users, Attract Advertisers • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by adekok » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 5:22 PM UTC

ribosometronome wrote: post #108

adekok wrote: post #13

Similarly, Youtube is demonetizing videos with "bad words". Such as referring to "the naked eye". See here for a deconstruction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlRFoYr-XuY&t=306s This kind of censorship is nice, until it turns into censorship of "things the company dislikes", versus "bad / illegal things." See recent vidcon for an example. Despite rules against harassment, a panelist out-and-out harassed an attendee…

> and the organizers did nothing. The organizers have given an apology to Sarkeesian for allowing a group that has dedicated itself to harassing her over the years to come and monopolize the front seats of that panel. You would think someone so concerned about the harassment of a key figure supporting the GamerGate movement would actually report the situation in its entirety. It's almost as all of this might not be a…

> The organizers have given an apology to Sarkeesian for allowing a group that has dedicated itself to harassing her over the years

I've looked... is there any proof of this?

- phone calls from those people to Anita

- emails...

- twitter messages

- facebook messages...

If there are, I'll be happy to label them harassers. But until then... I have this weird idea that

the rule of law is more important than feelings

The vidcon people (among others) have made it clear that they will violate their own rules in order to "get" the bad people. People who, according to their own rules, have done nothing wrong.

Witch-hunts end up in one place, and only one place. The people who previously were accusers, on trial, for the same offenses.

So again, is there any reason to believe these accusations? If not, why do you believe them?

Edit Apparently asking for evidence was the wrong thing to do.

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

#282

Post by stevenwoo » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 5:23 PM UTC

hankhill wrote: post #274

HN is either filled to the brim with Russian state sponsored trolls, or Silicon Valley really is the most disgusting cesspool of human garbage ever concieved.

There are a lot of people who might be smart in one arena and then open their mouth about some other subject and reveal how not smart they might be in a whole lot of other ways. Recent example #1 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/16/james-dam...

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

#283

Post by Helmet » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 5:23 PM UTC

abiox wrote: post #241

Helmet wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would r/The_Donald be neutral? It's literally called "The_Donald". It's like expecting r/hillaryclinton to be neutral. r/politics is for all political discussion, but it's just a left-wing echo chamber where ideological conformity and cognitive dissonance are at their peak. This is coming from a 2x Obama voter and lifelong liberal btw.

> This is coming from a 2x Obama voter and lifelong liberal btw. fwiw, it is extremely easy to label oneself thus and not be "left leaning" in any meaningful respect.

OK. On social issues I support the general liberal consensus. I'm in favor of more financial regulation (although this stance is embraced by both the far left and right), a one payer healthcare system, and free/cheaper access to college education.

Where I differ, I suppose, is against the left's general trend towards censorship, anti-free speech attitudes, anti-police attitudes, and this moral preening about immigration (I believe in borders and the importance of cultural assimilation if you are an immigrant, like I am).

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

#284

Post by ThomPete » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 5:23 PM UTC

beepboopbeep wrote: post #280

ThomPete wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if they are bad are they as bad as Bush starting a war? It's claimed that somehow Trump is the worst of them all. From what you have stated here do you personally think they are worse things than Bush starting a war?

While I have an opinion for your question, you seem oddly driven to change topics. So I'll kindly decline to answer.

I am not changing topics at all. When someone claims that Trump is the worst we have ever had then that of course means we have to compare to what other presidents have done to determine whether this is mostly a disagreement over style or over actual politics.

The later is interesting the former is boring.

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

#285

Post by bllguo » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 5:24 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #262

beepboopbeep wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even if they are bad are they as bad as Bush starting a war? It's claimed that somehow Trump is the worst of them all. From what you have stated here do you personally think they are worse things than Bush starting a war?

I find it really hard to believe you're arguing in good faith. What is the purpose of a comparison to Bush..? Even if the answer is that Bush was worse, it does not take away at all from how terrible Trump has been. And we're comparing 8 yrs of Bush to not even 1 from Trump, here.

Anyway - yes, I do think that conspiring with hostile foreign entities to manipulate voters and undermine American democracy is worse.

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

#286

Post by 52-6F-62 » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 5:24 PM UTC

wolco wrote: post #277

52-6F-62 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cons…

It reflects the mods.

How do vote tallies reflect the mods?

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

#287

Post by beepboopbeep » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 5:26 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #253

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.

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).

I know 2 data points do not make a pattern, but it's really weird that both replies to my comment are in a similar vein from usernames that appear to be variants of "Tom P"

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

#288

Post by stale2002 » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 5:26 PM UTC

fhood wrote: post #111

grandalf wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent point. Sadly this will likely not happen. Google and Facebook are gradually imposing a highly censored world view. We can’t effectively reason about social media censorship by analogizing it to meatspace. Just as virality mechanisms amplify “good” content, they also change the equilibrium state of whose ideas can spread. Censorship programs work like a squirt of insecticide into a beehive, they kill off som…

First off, the first amendment is specifically with respect to congress, and I don't understand why I have to say this so often. Second, society has always been self censoring, but the internet has thrown a wrench into that by allowing people to escape into pockets of like minded individuals. And you might have noticed that hacker news is fairly heavily censored, and as a result has managed to avoid turning into a ce…

I don't see the words "first amendment" anywhere in his post, so I have no idea why you are bringing up a completely irrelevant topic.

He was talking about censorship done by powerful organizations. Literally nothing to do with the constitution of the USA.

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

#289

Post by ohyes » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 5:26 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #265

ohyes wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Shouldn't we first agree on what constitutes racism and misogyny? It's easy to say that others are and forgetting that most people are to some extent. Also because someone in your view is misguided about race or gender does that mean you should treat them as I am assuming you believe they treat people of other race or gender? Why is it a better world to live in where you ban one view rather than the other when the re…

> Shouldn't we first agree on what constitutes racism and misogyny?

I think these are pretty well defined.

Racism: Prejudice against others based on race.

Misogyny: Prejudice against women.

> It's easy to say that others are and forgetting that most people are to some extent.

There's a difference between having a normal level of in-group selection bias and realizing it is wrong, and spouting racist/sexist rhetoric.

> Also because someone in your view is misguided about race or gender does that mean you should treat them as I am assuming you believe they treat people of other race or gender?

No. You still let them speak and vote but you don't listen, and if asked, you tell other people they shouldn't listen. You can refuse to let them use your company to spread their hate.

You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to someone else's bully pulpit.

The concern that racists are getting oppressed is laughable. I don't understand the mental gymnastics required to justify that thought process.

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

#290

Post by sctb » Fri, Nov 17, 2017, 5:27 PM UTC

argv_empty wrote: post #42

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…

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?

Could you please put more thought and less provocation into comments on controversial topics like this? It's difficult, I know, but we have to try. The discussions that follow such comments tend to have a desperate attitude that puts thoughtful discussion further out of reach.

> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html