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

381–390 of 413 posts

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

#381

Post by pmarreck »

marmada wrote: post #299
lordlimecat wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit is saying "We stand for free speech" and then later saying "the best way to deal with toxic and hateful viewpoints is to censor and hide them." Belief in free speech as a principle assumes that good and right arguments will win out every day in an open public forum.

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.

> Things like racism aren't motivated by rational arguments

Yes they are, because that is exactly what newly-insular racist communities will use to bolster up their ideological positions... Cherry-picked evidence that makes their position look rational.

The idea that no racist is thinking rationally is ridiculous.

To the extent rationality is what got them into their racism, that is exactly the amount that rationality can remove them from racism. By definition.

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

#382

Post by pmarreck »

berrynice wrote: post #196
lordlimecat wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit is saying "We stand for free speech" and then later saying "the best way to deal with toxic and hateful viewpoints is to censor and hide them." Belief in free speech as a principle assumes that good and right arguments will win out every day in an open public forum.

>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.

If you don’t believe in free speech on principle, I’m sure China and North Korea will take you, because you don’t belong in a Western democracy

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

#383

Post by pmarreck »

meko wrote: post #272
lordlimecat wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit is saying "We stand for free speech" and then later saying "the best way to deal with toxic and hateful viewpoints is to censor and hide them." Belief in free speech as a principle assumes that good and right arguments will win out every day in an open public forum.

Have yet to find a single defense for free speech that wasn't a 'slippery slope' fallacy at it's core.

/r/Pyongyang is leaking

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

#384

Post by tonyarkles »

aetherson wrote: post #331
tonyarkles wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That just begs the question. Young people today are not less racist because each generation magically improves. If they're less racist, then there had to be a mechanism for it.

This is totally an unsupported hypothesis. I have no data.

The mechanism I'm proposing is that the current generation has not been exposed to many of the toxic things that reinforced racist beliefs. Slavery, segregated schools, etc. Kids in school are taught why those things were bad and why racism is bad. While not all of society has abandoned racism, there's been enough of a push that the public institutions educating the next generation are making efforts to reduce it.

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

#385

Post by freehunter »

arkh wrote: post #365
freehunter wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not entirely sure what "it" you're referring to. If you're saying that it's racist because only one race is allowed to say the word: No, I don't think so. It's not really a racial thing, it's a race and a culture. Not all black Americans say it, not all black Americans agree with it, and not all black Americans can get away with saying it. It's a kinship thing. My wife's female friends can say "you're such a bitc…

Specifically this part : "Non-black Americans are not commonly accepted into this community" Also the fact people keep writing "the n word", "the word but with an a" feels like communicating with children. Just write nigger or nigga and be done. The sky won't fall. You can't analyze or criticize something you can't name. Especially when forbidden words change every 10 to 15 years because people will just start using…

Some people aren't comfortable saying the word, I don't know if anything you can say would change that. The only purpose of the word, from my perspective, is to hurt someone else. You can say it all you want in whatever manner you want, but I won't because I know it can only hurt the people who hear it.

All I was trying to do was to explain to a non-American how Americans view the word. The wrong person saying it to the right person could easily get that speaker killed, that's the power the word has in some communities. You can say it online all you want and you can argue that it doesn't have power, but there are many neighborhoods in America where saying it with an "a" or with an "r" will result in a murder that no witnesses will corroborate.

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

#386

Post by dondawest »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #305
dondawest wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smoking is a great example because NOW ITS A SEXUAL FETISH TOO When you make something fringe you invite people to fetishize it. All you do is up the ante. Sure, some normies will stop being racists because there’s no longer a place to be racist. But other guys will fetishize racism and shoot up synagogues. Is the benefit of subtracting normies from racist movements worth the cost of creating people who fetishize rac…

I think pervasive racism does more damage than mass shooters, in total. Push it to the fringes.

I agree pervasive racism does more damage than mass shooters but ONE GUY ON THE FRINGES WHO WRITES A MANIFESTO does more damage than all the mass shooters in the world. See: henry ford. If you push it to the fringes you create henry fords and then we’re REALLY fucked.

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

#387

Post by DataWorker »

faissaloo wrote: post #327
whenchamenia wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You might want to try and get an outside perspective from a mental health professional or something. We’re talking about trolls on Reddit and you’re talking about death and being merciful. I hope you’re ok and just being hyperbolic, but it never hurts to talk to a professional about this stuff. You sound stressed if nothing else.

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

#388

Post by faissaloo »

DataWorker wrote: post #387
faissaloo wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You might want to try and get an outside perspective from a mental health professional or something. We’re talking about trolls on Reddit and you’re talking about death and being merciful. I hope you’re ok and just being hyperbolic, but it never hurts to talk to a professional about this stuff. You sound stressed if nothing else.

A troll is someone who doesn't believe what they say and merely enjoys angering people, these people are very genuine in their belief. If you live in the sheltered parts of the internet it might shock you to learn that there are real people who think people like you and I should be dead, and are a post-ironic meme or two away from doing the job themselves.

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

#389

Post by berrynice »

pmarreck wrote: post #382
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.

If you don’t believe in free speech on principle, I’m sure China and North Korea will take you, because you don’t belong in a Western democracy

I believe in the freedom of the people I agree with to speak, this argument is obviously absurd.

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

#390

Post by berrynice »

8note wrote: post #336
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.

which is demonstrably not true? that belief in free speech assumes the right arguments winning, or that the right arguments win?

That the right arguments win.
Post reply on HN