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

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

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 413 posts

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

#321

Post by narrator »

DeusExMachina wrote: post #29

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…

They aren't really echo chambers. I routinely harass these people for their racist views and they don't ban me. Their Hitler worshipping is really ludicrous. It's a lot of fun to flame someone on the Internet without worrying about getting banned for hurting people's feelings. I think the false belief that the mainstream has gotten everyone into is "racism=nationalism". The stupid people on the right bought into that and took the other side even though that's the narrative of their ideological enemies. I am trying to deprogram from the idea that nationalism and racism are synonymous.

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

#322

Post by bobdole12345 »

aetherson wrote: post #311
marmada wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumption is false. Things like racism aren't motivated by rational arguments, so they cannot be cured through a rational tool, like free speech. Racism stems from fear, hate, and deeply embedded cultural tools. You can't "cure" racism through argumentation. Maybe, maybe, you can make people less racist in person -- but on an anonymous forum like Reddit, not a chance.

The world is less racist now than it was in the past. What mechanism do you posit for this?

Education. The world is radically more educated than in the past.

That's not a product of free speech, it's a product of teaching people how to evaluate thoughts they come across in the wild.

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

#323

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

thosakwe wrote: post #267
Smithalicious wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think "causing harm to the general public" is at all a good metric to decide "toxic". I've had to deal with more trouble caused by people who insist on using Apache than I've had caused by white supremacists, and I don't think I've ever met someone who "defends sex offenders" (as a general position). To begin with, "causing harm" is still essentialyl subjective. An anti-vaxxer wouldn't think they're "causing…

> To begin with, "causing harm" is still essentialyl subjective. An anti-vaxxer wouldn't think they're "causing harm" at all. You're still basing yourself on whether or not you agree with someone or not. It's not about whether you think you're causing harm... It's about whether you objectively are. Anti-vaxxers have led to the resurgence of diseases once thought to be extinct. White supremacists carry out acts of ter…

> It's not about whether you think you're causing harm... It's about whether you objectively are.

Not my personal view but I will point out that from the point of view of a vegan or PETA, raising animals and slaughtering them for meat and other animal products is causing harm. And you cannot objectively deny that the deaths and incidental suffering of those animals is not harm. Are they justified in considering you (assuming you consume animal products) toxic and immoral?

Your heuristic is not meaningful.

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

#324

Post by faissaloo »

eMSF wrote: post #303
faissaloo wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homeless people are not undeserving of things based o their actions, fascists are.

Is writing mean comments about fatness fascism? Do you feel your point would've been fully diluted if you wrote "bullies" instead? Personally I usually don't take overly dramatic comments seriously.

I think this is an irrelevent triviality.

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

#325

Post by lopmotr »

UncleMeat wrote: post #304
matz1 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously for the people who posting it and maybe many more people, it is not shit. Well, its trash for you but treasure for others. To them you are the assholes for calling it trash or wanting to get rid of it. Its all have to do with agreeing and disagreeing. To them proper places of discussion is the place where you can have comments like that. Its all matter of prespective.

Will you be saying it is all a matter of perspective when they are executing black people?

If you use that standard to judge what speech should be censored, then you need to censor just about everything. Perhaps starting with any talk about international relations because it might lead to war, and violent rap music, and criticism of people for their political views. Even yourself for suggesting that Voat users might start executing black people. What if that belief leads to violent retaliation by someone who reads it? That actually happened with Black Lives Matter - its ideas led at least one person to execute innocent policemen.

Before you judge something as morally right or wrong, you have to have a standard that you're judging it by. Otherwise you'll just end up making ad-hoc decisions that depend on your emotions at the moment with no particular meaning or direction. Your morals will wander aimlessly in the space of possible morals, pushed this way and that by peer pressure and the media. They'll also develop internal inconsistencies. What's the use of an aimless moral? You might as well just pick them randomly.

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

#326

Post by aetherson »

bobdole12345 wrote: post #322
aetherson wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is less racist now than it was in the past. What mechanism do you posit for this?

Education. The world is radically more educated than in the past. That's not a product of free speech, it's a product of teaching people how to evaluate thoughts they come across in the wild.

Well, it's a theory. How do you plan to support it with evidence? I mean, the world is radically richer than in the past -- perhaps wealth causes less racism.

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

#327

Post by faissaloo »

whenchamenia wrote: post #282
faissaloo wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homeless people are not undeserving of things based o their actions, fascists are.

Nobody deserves to be deprived based on their political beliefs. Only actions. Thoughtcrime is bullshit, and I sure as hell don't see any active facists roaming the streets.

If your political beliefs are a threat to my existence anything less than death is a mercy on my part. It's not just a 'thoughtcrime' if it's a stance you actively promote.

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

#328

Post by berrynice »

fzeroracer wrote: post #313
berrynice wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Belief in free speech as a principle assumes that good and right arguments will win out every day in an open public forum. This is demonstrably not the case. Just look at the chans.

Hell, we can look at Voat and Gab as well for example of sites where absolute free speech as a principle has failed to result in any sort of good outcome. Conveniently these sites are ignored or handwaved away or are somehow only because of censorship.

Yeah I used to use Voat right after /r/conspiracy started getting scared, things were civil and small scale and I had some fruitful discussions, that went to hell once the racist subs started getting hit.

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

#329

Post by tonyarkles »

aetherson wrote: post #311
marmada wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumption is false. Things like racism aren't motivated by rational arguments, so they cannot be cured through a rational tool, like free speech. Racism stems from fear, hate, and deeply embedded cultural tools. You can't "cure" racism through argumentation. Maybe, maybe, you can make people less racist in person -- but on an anonymous forum like Reddit, not a chance.

The world is less racist now than it was in the past. What mechanism do you posit for this?

I can't reply to the sibling comment that suggests education, but a corollary to education is that many of the people who had deeply-engrained racist beliefs are dying/dead from old age. I agree that the world is less racist now than it was in, say, the 1950s, but my personal experiences with the elderly suggests that the people who were racist in the 50s and are still alive are just as racist now as ever.

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

#330

Post by lopmotr »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #195
0xfffafaCrash wrote: post #8

So, it "worked" in the sense that the users likely moved to more toxic echo chambers where they can be further radicalized in their toxic viewpoints? Yay?

Why do people who are banned always think this is about them, as if they were the centre of the universe? Banning people is not for their benefit, to somehow make them better people, keep them from forming radical views or nonsense like that. It's solely for the benefit of the remaining users and the forums themselves. That means you have to strike a balance between banning/removing too much or banning/removing too f…

So you're on the side of the baker in the gay wedding cake case? The difference here is that that was one small shop among many so the customers aren't completely screwed. Social media is dominated by a small number of huge companies so that if they ban you, then you lose access to far more than just one private business. You can't just cross the street and use the other almost-as-good Reddit or almost-as-good Twitter. You're socially isolated online. For that reason, I think when companies have massive control of a big and important market, they should be subject to some greater obligations towards their users/customers.
Post reply on HN