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

351–360 of 407 posts

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

#351

Post by Pxtl »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #311
Pxtl wrote: post #34

They'll have to dig themselves out of a pretty deep hole, reputation-wise. While there are specific subject subreddit with fantastic content, most of the regional subs they carry lots of news and politics have a well-earned reputation for racism and xenophobia, and the more discussion-oriented subs add in misogyny into the mix. Only the subs with obsessively strict moderation like the science subs (or /r/Canada polit…

/r/Canada isn't too bad because that's how Canadians are. Even when we disagree we generally try to be civil.

No, I meant /r/CanadaPolitics, but the name got autocorrected away. /r/Canada is a hive of racism and getting worse since the last election or so.

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

#352

Post by alexanderstears »

s73ver_ wrote: post #347
alexanderstears wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's murkier when one group commits a disproportionate amount of crime - accurate/percise coverage might look disproportionate even though it's actually representative. I agree that pointing things out can be bigoted, but to the extent that politics addresses questions between friend and foe, it's natural that political expression is bigoted. Feminism is inherently bigoted to the extent that pointing out male…

"I think it's murkier when one group commits a disproportionate amount of crime - accurate/percise coverage might look disproportionate even though it's actually representative." You're gonna have to prove that's the case. In just about every study, it's been shown that, no, the crime rates are not disproportionately higher. "Feminism is inherently bigoted" No, it's not. Not in the slightest. Wanting equality only lo…

>In just about every study, it's been shown that, no, the crime rates are not disproportionately higher.

Are we even talking about the same thing? There are absolutely groups that commit more crimes than others. Do you honestly need a citation for a claim like, "young men commit more crimes than elderly women?"

>No, it's not. Not in the slightest. Wanting equality only looks bigoted to those who benefit from the inequality.

Feminism isn't bigoted for wanting equality, Feminism is bigoted (but probably correctly so) for highlighting men as the reason there isn't equality. It gets back to my central claim that claims can be bigoted and true/valid/accurate.

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

#353

Post by ABCLAW »

Danihan wrote: post #215
enord wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ah, that's the crux: racism and misogyny are terrible enough that if you hate it, you must be correct. As is required to maintain what I would call a "democracy" with "individual rights". We have to be vehemently intolerant of intolerance and marginalization (in general), and this is more important than free speech. Free speech is an artefact of-, not a requirement for democracy. Tolerance is required, however. Some…

>Free speech is an artefact of-, not a requirement for democracy. Tolerance is required, however. That seems like a pretty grand statement to make offhand and pretend like it's objective. Free speech is in the very first amendment. #1. Yet you feel so comfortable hand-waving it away. Freedom of Association implies just the opposite of your argument, that intolerence is specifically protected.

The first amendment did not create democracy. It was enacted in one. That's the point being made.

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

#354

Post by dragonwriter »

alexanderstears wrote: post #352
s73ver_ wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think it's murkier when one group commits a disproportionate amount of crime - accurate/percise coverage might look disproportionate even though it's actually representative." You're gonna have to prove that's the case. In just about every study, it's been shown that, no, the crime rates are not disproportionately higher. "Feminism is inherently bigoted" No, it's not. Not in the slightest. Wanting equality only lo…

>In just about every study, it's been shown that, no, the crime rates are not disproportionately higher. Are we even talking about the same thing? There are absolutely groups that commit more crimes than others. Do you honestly need a citation for a claim like, "young men commit more crimes than elderly women?" >No, it's not. Not in the slightest. Wanting equality only looks bigoted to those who benefit from the ineq…

IME, much of feminism focuses on patriarchy as a set of structures as the problem, not men, and that the patriarchy is neither exclusively supported by men and their actions nor exclusively harmful to women.

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

#355

Post by aeorgnoieang »

fhood wrote: post #220
aeorgnoieang wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First off, the first amendment is specifically with respect to congress, and I don't understand why I have to say this so often. It's also been 'incorporated' against the states (and their sub-governments like municipalities). But free speech , as a political value, isn't restricted to the U.S. Congress. That may be why you keep repeating something that's mostly irrelevant. Wanting to "escape into pockets of like m…

About the free speech thing, people should say free speech when they mean free speech and not the first amendment. The first amendment is a specific thing with a specific meaning, and invoking it implies the weight of law. Facebook can censor speech without breaking the law. They might be violating the principle of free speech, but not the first amendment. I agree with you about reddit.

> About the free speech thing, people should say free speech when they mean free speech and not the first amendment.

My bad – I didn't even notice the comment to which you were replying had done this!

We might be disappointed tho in so far as "first amendment" comes to mean 'free speech' to too many people. I mourn the loss of precision, and I'm a little afraid of people conflating the two ideas too.

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

#356

Post by bitL »

lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #69
bitL wrote: post #6

So what are reasonable Reddit alternatives that don't act as outlets of banned subreddits? Once you start banning stuff left and right, it's a slippery slope, making large groups of population feel weird/forcing them to learned hopelessness. It would be better instead to train some ML for content classification, then set user preferences about what triggers them, and then warn users that some submission might disturb…

>once you start banning hate speech it's a slippery slope Or maybe the slope ends with nazis. Just a thought. 4chan will always exist as the bastion for your juvenile ideas of "free speech" (and all of the baggage that comes with it).

Read what I wrote above about reinforcement learning (exploration phase) and then get back to me with "my juvenile" ideas.

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

#357

Post by zimpenfish »

tscs37 wrote: post #331
pwinnski wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refusing to provide a free platform for them to publish their thoughts is not in any way, shape, or form equivalent to, or even similar to, the "extermination" committed by Nazis, and desired by their modern adherents.

The way it was phrased, it definitely was. And especially as a german I am not comfortable with some of the solutions proposed in this entire thread.

> as a german

Your country has literally banned Nazis, mentions of Nazis, symbols of Nazis, etc. Hell, even Twitter blocks Nazis in Germany.

Has it descended down the slippery slope into authoritarian disaster?

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

#358

Post by adekok »

Frondo wrote: post #323
adekok wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The panelist, having been harassed and dogpiled for many years by the racist misogynist attendee ... which is, of course, not true. > sat on the front row with many of his fellow harassers Who also didn't harass her. Honestly, this isn't rocket science. If I make a video calling someone an idiot, asshole, etc. That in no way is harassment. They don't need to see it. It's not directed at then. The same goes for othe…

"... which is, of course, not true." It is true. Stop lying about this. All this stuff unfolds in public, the non-stop harassment of people like Anita Sarkeesian by people like that person she called out. There is no mystery here, no ambiguity about the wretchedness of the behaviors of the guys dogpiling on people like her.

> It is true. Stop lying about this.

Seriously?

Since you have so much evidence, you can easily show it here.

I won't hold my breath.

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

#359

Post by zimpenfish »

dethswatch wrote: post #316
zimpenfish wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The spillover is very real, just not on the same site. Which is good - concentrate the hate speech into a single place and then take it down.

> then take it down. Love this idea! But I get to decide what's permitted and what's not. We're going to start with art that I don't understand, then off to literature that I don't care for, when all of that filth is cleaned out, it's on to expressions of thought that everyone intuitively knows are wrong, then we progress to purge politics of incompatible policy and incorrect voting patterns. Ok?

> But I get to decide what's permitted and what's not

What are your credentials for this job?

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

#360

Post by zimpenfish »

tambienben wrote: post #295
zimpenfish wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but a registrar / hoster that has just closed one hate site isn't going to let someone spin up another immediately. And soon enough they'll be out of options.

Your brazen support of censorship is troubling.

If my earnest support for silencing Nazis, the alt-right, PUAs, MRAs, climate change deniers, woo peddlers et al troubles you, perhaps you need to start examining your own beliefs and figure out why you don't want them silenced.
Post reply on HN