Live data from Hacker News

Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

old.reddit.com

361–370 of 401 posts

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be surprised what percent of reddit visitors just browse popular or don't do specific subs outside the default. Most users aren't super users.

That's probably true, but people who just look at popular post and aren't engaged in anything aren't really part of any community either, unless we expand community to literally mean anybody that's visiting the site, at which point it becomes somewhat meaningless because it's too homogeneous again. Terms that have no distinctive power have little value, so while I'd certainly consider them "users", I wouldn't conside…

I don't go to my city council meetings, but am still a member of our local community.

This is quick becoming a debate over definitions, but I think reddit thinks of itself as both having a community and also as having individual communities. For example, anybody who has had a post in their niche community get to the front page understands that there's a larger community they're a part of that is different from their smaller one.

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#362
post #2

Reddit admin message: > Your account has been suspended from for breaking the rules. Your account has been suspended for 3 day(s). >> You recently upvoted a post or comment that was determined to be against our policies. Abusive content is not acceptable on Reddit nor is engaging with it. Please be thoughful about the content that you interact with. Interestingly nothing in the Reddit policies seems to mention voting…

That message is so stupid. What's there to learn from the punishment if you don't know what you did wrong?

You learn that you are on the mercy of the platform owner. And that if you withhold enough details of the punishment you can play afool with courts.

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#363
Why do SO MANY pretend-libertarian tech bros pretending to be libertarians and liberty-loving freedom fans think that free speech applies to private property?

And why have they let themselves be tricked into spewing the Section-230 nonsense that conservative hate-mongers are using to threaten online service providers?

Section 230 protection is irrelevant to service providers policing their site. It is very relevant to service providers who are being told by conservative hate-mongering politicians “hey we’ll strip your protections unless you allow our hateful content even though the protections are unrelated to our content and comments”.

You’re carrying water for malicious actors who don’t care about you.

By your own logic, not mine (I think it’s bullshit) YOURS if you downvote this comment to the point that it is hidden or automodded then you are infringing on my “FREEZE PEECH RAIGHTS” because you are “removing” constitutionally-protected freeze peach from the public sphere.

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#364
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without section 230 protection it would be impossible for the site to stay open, so in effect you're saying sites that moderate user content should be shut down. Does that seem like an accurate interpretation of your position?

Sure it will be possible to stay open: just double down removing offending content and defend from the lawsuits. Large companies routinely have multiple ongoing lawsuits.

This is not a practical way for anyone to run a business.

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I simply disagree that it moves up. We have had a clear delineation between what is "restrictive private property" and what is "open access private property". That separation is clearly delineated at the IP network + related necessities. This model has worked well, and I don't see how it is breaking now. Someone else mentioned as well, but some very specific monopoly/necessity cases could change this delineation, how…

I think it's reasonable to argue that we have a bunch of local monopolies today, only that "local" on the internet is interest-based-local, not geographically local. You mentioned Google Search, I'd add Youtube for video content, Twitch for streaming, FB for social network etc. Sure, you can broadcast video content without Youtube, there's vimeo or you could host it yourself, but it's really not a feasible approach.…

I strongly disagree on all points, but I think it is a useful perspective overall as a comparison of what the future could or should look like.

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#366

I don't really get reddit's efforts to clean their site. They sometimes come up with measures like this, while routinely ignoring the development of horrible communities that they're aware of (since some users take any possible opportunity to mention them to the admins and are met with silence or half measures). They even came up with the concept of quarantined subreddits. I honestly can't think of a single honest re…

> They even came up with the concept of quarantined subreddits. I honestly can't think of a single honest reason for them existing. Once you've deemed a community so harmful that you don't want people accidentally stumbling into it, why go out of your way to allow it to exist behind a curtain, instead of just outright banning it (unless you want to support it discreetly).

In what world, refusing to ban something from your online platform is equivalent to "supporting it" (discreetly)? Reddit is a business, the business of getting ad money for providing an open discussion forum. They are free to decide what they host and what they not but simply hosting something (which in their case means, doing business with people that post that content) doesn't mean they support it. Supporting something is not the opposite of not supporting it.

It's like saying that Amazon _supports_ pornography because AWS allows to host pornographic content.

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#367
Here is what people mean when we say we don't like Section 230. And we mean it whether or not Section 230 is actually responsible.

- Advertiser uses our trademark on Google Ads? Google makes money and has editorial control. But we can't sue them.

- Somebody posts something libelous about us on Twitter? Twitter makes serious money and has editorial control. But we can't sue them.

- Fakes on eBay? Can't stop them. eBay not liable.

If Twitter is going to have a "fact checking" department, then they also need a "retractions" department. And if retraction aren't forthcoming when reasonable, then we need a cause of action against them.

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#368
post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This conversation will definitely be easier to follow if you get up to speed first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... Where is the evidence that the level of misinformation is any higher now than in the past, See the above overview for a start. History has shown that we didn't need to censor and oppress Communist thought in the US during the Cold War because of its alleged threat, and ev…

Generally, your points are well taken. The only quibble I have on a factual basis is here: > 3. "Censorship" is when a person is not allowed to express their views. That is not what is being proposed here. This is about refusing to hand a megaphone to bad actors. Censorship, historically, was preventing objectionable books from being published. In many forms of censorship, there was nothing theoretically preventing a…

    Firstly, with deep respect, this is incredibly arrogant. 
    But nevertheless, you may be right about this, that only 
    the enlightened and educated few can discern truth from 
    falsity and make informed choices.
I meant it purely in a humble way, and in the spirit of recognizing my own privileges. Not as some kind of value judgement. I am nothing special by HN standards, that's for darn sure. I'm probably below average here.

But it's important to examine our own privileges.

Intelligence (while admittedly not well-represented by a single number like IQ) is more or less a lottery we win or lose at birth. Bragging about intelligence is like bragging about being tall. It's not something earned; it wouldn't make sense for anybody to ever brag about it.

Critical thinking is a skill that is a serious luxury. It relies on some combination of intelligence, time to hone the skill, access to education, access to information, and/or a serious autodidactic streak. A lot of people live lives where one or all of those is missing, often through no fault of their own.

Other things help me to separate online misinformation from information as well. I was in high school / college as the web came of age, at a time when I had the time and inclination to dive into it from the beginning.

I was born into a stable middle class household in which we could afford a computer and internet access. More privileges many do not enjoy.

All those factors were crucial. Take one away and I may well have struggled to comprehend the difference between real and fake news.

My sister is a prime example. Many of the same advantages of me, but born earlier. Missed the internet revolution. Never been comfortable with technology. Constantly falls for fake news. Is that her fault? Well, yes, ultimately. We must all be responsible for ourselves.

But it's also essentially "a well-financed misinformation industry" versus "a middle-aged woman who is technologically illiterate" and wow, that is NOT a fair fight by any measure. If we are basing the future of our society on that fight having a favorable outcome, we are really fooling ourselves.

    But nevertheless, you may be right about this, that only the 
    enlightened and educated few can discern truth from falsity 
    and make informed choices.
It's not even easy for those with the intelligence and inclination. The "enemy" here is not a crazy person, dressed in rags, wandering down the street muttering that the moon is made of cheese.

The "enemy" is well-funded organizations who have serious time and money -- and sometimes state level backing -- and are devoted to pushing a mix of legitimate and fake news that takes serious effort and knowledge to separate from the real thing(s).

    I see within your argument, which may not be factually wrong, 
    a powerful argument in favor of authoritarianism and oligarchy
I certainly don't want that. If anything I'd say my arguments point towards technocracy where we would favor experts over pure mob rule. That certainly presents its own problems though.

There are no easy answers.

A purely laissez-faire free for all absolutely does not work. We see it time and time again. Bad-faith information always utterly drowns out good-faith information, like spam emails or search results drowning out the legitimate stuff.

Solid, best-effort reporting takes time and sometimes the results are boring. Willful misinformation is orders of magnitude easier to produce.

Education and critical thinking are utterly essential. We should invest heavily in these areas. Democracy relies on them, utterly. But it is also fantasy to think everybody will become enlightened information-processors, and even those of us who are competent at it need help wading through oceans of garbage. At some point, we do need trusted providers of curation. While not ideal, it is realistic, unlike hoping that most members of society evolve into galaxy-brained autodidacts.

This is how any developed society functions. We can't all evaluate drugs and therapies, so we need the FDA. You could replace it with one or more private-sector ventures, perhaps, but at some point you would need to rely on something. We can't all make clothes or food so we trust others. We trust others to design our roads and keep them safe. If I had unlimited time and brain cells it might be nice to do these things myself, but it is not even a little bit realistic.

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once you've deemed a community so harmful that you don't want people accidentally stumbling into it, why go out of your way to allow it to exist behind a curtain, instead of just outright banning it (unless you want to support it discreetly). Perhaps this is a way to sidestep claims of censorship. Deleting subs can embolden some community themes and messages by allowing them to play victim of censorship and bolster…

It also keeps people from flooding into the rest of Reddit. When /r/fatpeoplehate was banned, their users flooded and spammed most other subreddits.

For what its worth, researchers have actually studied this specific case (r/fatpeoplehate) and concluded the exact opposite: http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf

Re: Reddit started banning accounts that voted for content “against their policies”

#370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably in 2020, you should be very careful about expressing any opinion that is in any way unpopular. Or that even could be construed as such.

I feel like people have forgotten what free speech is.

I grew up in a very fundamentalist (Christian) area, so the lack of it feels very familiar.
Post reply on HN