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

Study and Interactive Visualization of Toxicity in Reddit Communities

idibon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: Study and Interactive Visualization of Toxicity in Reddit Communities

#31

Post by DanBC »

tomp wrote: post #28

I disagree with the criteria for toxicity. The first one is OK, but the second one makes little sense for some communities. For example, if we have a white suprematist community, you can expect many overtly bigoted comments. However, if these comments are only general and are never ad hominem attacks, I don't see that as toxicity. A black person being able to argue against white supremacy without being called "nigger…

> while overt bigotry in general is not toxic IMO.

It's baffling to me how white men say stuff like this.

Re: Study and Interactive Visualization of Toxicity in Reddit Communities

#32

Post by tomp »

DanBC wrote: post #31
tomp wrote: post #28

I disagree with the criteria for toxicity. The first one is OK, but the second one makes little sense for some communities. For example, if we have a white suprematist community, you can expect many overtly bigoted comments. However, if these comments are only general and are never ad hominem attacks, I don't see that as toxicity. A black person being able to argue against white supremacy without being called "nigger…

> while overt bigotry in general is not toxic IMO. It's baffling to me how white men say stuff like this.

> overt bigotry

> white men

Baffling?

Re: Study and Interactive Visualization of Toxicity in Reddit Communities

#33

Post by [deleted] »

DanBC wrote: post #31
tomp wrote: post #28

I disagree with the criteria for toxicity. The first one is OK, but the second one makes little sense for some communities. For example, if we have a white suprematist community, you can expect many overtly bigoted comments. However, if these comments are only general and are never ad hominem attacks, I don't see that as toxicity. A black person being able to argue against white supremacy without being called "nigger…

> while overt bigotry in general is not toxic IMO. It's baffling to me how white men say stuff like this.

[deleted]

Re: Study and Interactive Visualization of Toxicity in Reddit Communities

#34

Post by rmc »

intended wrote: post #26
rmc wrote: post #23

ShitRedditSays, and the "most toxic" subreddit in that result, is actually a joke subreddit. It's a "circle jerk" where everyone flips around the standard racism and sexism (so sexism jokes against men) etc. "breaking the jerk", actually taking it seriously, is a bankable offense. I think this makes their analysis flawed. If you were to look at spelling and grammar, you might conclude that people on polandball are th…

With srs and As with other older joke subreddits - new subscribers can't make out the difference between seriousness, sarcasm and humor. SRS has evolved into a sub that takes itself seriously from what I've witnessed.

But how would you know if it has changed? For all you know everyone is continuing to play along? The moderators of SRS are well known for being incredibly strict. Which is mocked with the image in the footer of the SRS subredit, where angles are throwing dildos a grave marked "free speech".

Re: Study and Interactive Visualization of Toxicity in Reddit Communities

#37

Post by intended »

rmc wrote: post #34
intended wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With srs and As with other older joke subreddits - new subscribers can't make out the difference between seriousness, sarcasm and humor. SRS has evolved into a sub that takes itself seriously from what I've witnessed.

But how would you know if it has changed? For all you know everyone is continuing to play along? The moderators of SRS are well known for being incredibly strict. Which is mocked with the image in the footer of the SRS subredit, where angles are throwing dildos a grave marked "free speech".

I can't point you to a post or series of comments at the moment. Theory of Reddit may have some posts specifically discussing this, but I know of scattered comments and discussions by victims, as well as grey beards who've left the forum. I've also visited the subreddit.

SRS subscribers have long since past the stage where they just made fun of comments, and actively brigade and/or ally with other subreddits to punish various kinds of speech/thought.

Subreddits/Forums can easily develop a shared culture different from the initial founders. SRS is one such case.

Re: Study and Interactive Visualization of Toxicity in Reddit Communities

#38

Post by gigglesfact »

erglkjahlkh wrote: post #21
brighteyes wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the more important point is that tumblrinaction mocks people. The same is true of shitredditsays. Both subreddits believe they are mocking and hating people for good and justified reasons, but the fact is, they are communities built around hatred. Communities built around hatred, justified or not, always end up being toxic. Hatred is sometimes - rarely - justified and necessary, but it is not a healthy emotio…

Well put. "Hatred (or hate) is a deep and emotional extreme dislike. It can be directed against individuals, groups, entities, objects, or ideas. Hatred is often associated with feelings of anger, disgust and a disposition towards hostility." -- Wikipedia (Hatred) It is alright until you get to the three last words. Disposition towards hostility. Things tend to go downhill from there, especially with large groups of…

Is that why the original comment got deleted for going against the narrative and pointing out the blatant bias? If you've kept up with modleaks, you'd realize srs and srd are the real "toxic" communities, which relish their identities of hate, and wheel and deal behind the scenes to spread this ideology.

TiA is a sub for people who deal with this stuff in real life and would like to meet and chat with people who aren't crazy. They have strict rules about not getting involved.

Unless you can show me examples of TiA doxxing or harassing. I have not seen it.

Seen plenty of "justified" outrage from the SRS/SRD crowd, who think they're "punching up" because of dumb simplifications like "privilege is power + oppression".

Re: Study and Interactive Visualization of Toxicity in Reddit Communities

#39

Post by gigglesfact »

rmc wrote: post #24
brighteyes wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the more important point is that tumblrinaction mocks people. The same is true of shitredditsays. Both subreddits believe they are mocking and hating people for good and justified reasons, but the fact is, they are communities built around hatred. Communities built around hatred, justified or not, always end up being toxic. Hatred is sometimes - rarely - justified and necessary, but it is not a healthy emotio…

Yes, most people on SRS hate sexism, racism etc. This is a good thing to hate. Here on HN people hate bad code, hate bad practices, had programming, etc

No, they hate what they think is racism and sexism, while continuing to put people in boxes and treating them differently based on gender and ethnicity.

Only now it's cis white men who are the acceptable target.

Re: Study and Interactive Visualization of Toxicity in Reddit Communities

#40

Post by noreallyhn »

This is rather hilariously slanted. "Bigotry by subreddit". Really?

"[TumblrInAction], a subreddit dedicated to mocking Tumblr – where marginalized groups, particularly LGBTQ, post about their experiences"

Here they neatly imply r/TumblrInAction mocks LGBTQ issues when in fact, it mocks people who use identities as tools to divide and hit people over the head with. Which is incidentally what this report does:

"Overt bigotry: the use of bigoted (racist/sexist/homophobic etc.) language, whether targeting any particular individual or more generally, which would make members of the referenced group feel highly uncomfortable" In other words: assuming everyone in group X feels the same way about what the authors consider offensive language. This ignores e.g. the vast amount of gay people on chan boards who say "faggot" for fun to each other.

This so-called bigotry is contrasted with "supportiveness", apparently a desirable trait. Yet you can easily find people's horrible behavior being supported in more hugbox-style forums, when they get into an in/out-group fight and all the niceties go out the window for the sake of victimhood. We saw this with Atheism+, with r/GamerGhazi, and the "women in tech" activists.

Speaking of, notice how they explicitly contrast r/TheRedPill with a companion "Women in Tech" link in the footnote/popup for no stated reason. TheRedPill is supposedly "dedicated to male chauvinism", where "bigoted comments received approval". Well, if you define the entire subreddit's subject matter as bigoted, are you surprised the community appears to support bigotry by your own count? I have read TheRedPill, it is the male equivalent of Jezebel, nothing more, nothing less.

Really, this is just spreading fear about certain reddits, as the summary practically admits: which communities you should avoid, according to data. Yet the most toxic subreddit of all by their own data, ShitRedditSays, is nicely euphemized as home to "unproductive conversations". Also if the authors think they "delved deep into the darkest recesses of the inter webs," by analyzing reddit comments, they are naive beyond belief.

Post reply on HN