Live data from Hacker News

Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

newyorker.com

671–680 of 757 posts

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#671
post #667
post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that while it's totally okay to do it, I'd find it better if people used it less for simply disagreeing. In my experience, the resulting discussion ends up being of poorer quality because of it (and less exposure due to being pushed down and hidden once it hits a certain threshold)

Such evidence as I'm aware of points in the opposite direction: HN without downvotes would be like a body without white blood cells. Disease would quickly kill it. The problem with your argument is that it doesn't reckon with just how lousy bad internet comments are, or how many of them there are, or how completely they take over if allowed to. To a first approximation, bad internet comments are the entire problem of…

>bad internet comments

Bad != disagree. I think we all agree that it should be ok to downvote and hide "bad" comments. However the problem is that many good comments are downvoted simply because people disagree with them.

I think it might be better to remove the downvote and replace it with "flag", so people can flag bad comments (spam, abusive, pointless, etc). At least that way people would need to think a little before the comment gets flagged, which would hopefully result in fewer minority viewpoint comments getting hidden.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could argue that toxic comments on the internet are the only reason the current president got elected in the US. Should said president lead us to a nuclear holocaust, or any number of other real possibilities due to his proven negligence, toxic internet comments would have a very real impact on the material conditions of citizens in this country.

Huh? What if Clinton had won and started a nuclear holocaust? Who's to blame then? You must be opposed to all political advertising for the party you don't like because somehow you're able to see that it's bad and the other half of the population isn't. That's being hopelessly blinded by partisanship.

I'm opposed to all political advertising period, and would have also considered a Clinton presidency non-optimal, though likely more stable than what we have now.

I'm fine with the down votes, but it should be pretty obvious that it would have been Marco Rubio, or some other sanitary GOP member who got elected if it wasn't for the Russian troll brigade on the internet whipping up a frenzy for Trump.

That's my only point

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#673
post #632
post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't equate this speech with violence. Oh I don't say you do. I am saying the need of so many people to do it suggests there's a distinct lack of violence to point at, otherwise they'd be pointing at it, instead of pointing at words. And since these people are highly motivated to find anything to point at, their failure to find it suggests maybe there's indeed not much political mob violence to find. > The level…

"There's no words that can make robots out of people" How do you explain cults? How do you explain the effects of advertising? How do you explain the uniform levels of discipline achieved by basic training? How do you explain phone scammers? How do you explain the success of the public relations industry? How do you explain Bernie Madoff? How do you explain cigarette smokers? How do you explain the effects of what we…

Most of your litany of questions can be answered by saying that nobody became a cultist by only reading words on a screen of what the cult believes.

Take Scientology for instance. I have access to the whole of their printed words online, yet I am not a Scientologist. You wouldn't be either. You can sub out "Scientology" for any other cult or any other odious group (including race nationalists, terrorists, etc.) and the statement remains true.

The reason being that nothing is being engaged here other than reading, writing, and thinking. No money is changing hands, no leader is demanding my obedience at literal or metaphorical gunpoint. In the case of a web forum the absolute worst thing that could happen to me is that I'll get rude comments or be unable to participate further.

The only difference between discourse and propaganda is the aim of the people doing the talking. This is a subjective value judgment on what you think of the speech, and when it comes to analyzing it, this amounts to noise. Are you trying to propagandize at me? :)

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Free speech is also problematic, when taken as 'all speech is equal.' Free speech is not problematic, as long as everyone has the right to speak and falsehoods can be debunked - there should be no "safe place" for the exchange of ideas, whether they are good or not. Starting by saying that 'free speech' has a problem is a very, very dangerous place to go to.

> there should be no "safe place" for the exchange of ideas What do you think a "safe space" is? If you are arguing that there should be platforms where people can speak without being shouted down when the audience strongly disagrees with what they're saying, that is a safe space . In order to construct that space, you have to deny some rights of the audience to speak in that context. And this is the whole problem wi…

Free listening is just as important a concept as free speech. I get to decide who and what I listen to.

It may be good for me to hear an uncomfortable truth, but ultimately I get to decide whether I listen or not. If I want to live in an echo chamber, I can do so, but it should be my choice. Equally if I want to hear uncomfortable opposing views, I should be able to. (Somewhere. Not necessarily on Reddit.com. The site's owners can publish whatever they want.)

This is true in practice, because as a last resort I can put my fingers in my ears and say “la la la not listening” loudly. So frankly, advertisers should give up trying to force me to see their adverts — they can't — and persuade me to listen instead.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, there was money to be made with that. Reddit generates enough to continue being Reddit through the gold program. What happened was Reddit got sold, and that large amount of money raised expectations about "making money", in particular, equating massive traffic to massive potential dollars. Reddit would have been just fine, and would have seen few real financial issues had it not been burdened with providing…

Yeah - if reddit had a sustainable model in place of a VC model, it would be a different story. The best example for reddit is a national park, imo. As for rules - Rules are not the first line of your defense. The first line of defense is the price of admission into your community. I have seen a large number of forums now, and frankly most of the heavy lifting is done by the type of people and the topic. For example…

I disagree with your first line of defense, but I do that on more general discussion.

You are on solid ground otherwise. :D

Norms, established members, and the concepts of owning our end of a discussion, as well as weighing what others say can do wonders for general fuckery.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ever notice how alphas looking to start shit have a keen interest in the rules? Of course! They want to know what they can get away with. The problem is, rules are also a way for someone who was wronged to appeal. While it's a line that troublemakers want to thread to push boundaries, when rules are unwritten, communities often become a reflection of the will of the moderator rather than a community of diverse opin…

It's entirely possible to appeal sans a set of rules. The appeals are rooted in norms, and the process is a dialog, kept recoverable, not a trial. Explain to me how a set of rules isn't a formalized expression if the will of those who created them? There is more to all of that, in particular, security and agency. But, those details aside, norms operate much like rules, and are far more resonant, and community owned t…

I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying that there are both benefits and costs to having rules.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#677
This is stupid. Facebook, reddit, twitter are trying to make the internet this beautiful family friendly place. This is bullshit, we as humans are toxic. This is the way we function. This is the way react on things. Censoring all of this might affect things we should not censor. Fuck family friendlyness if it has a chance to affect free speech.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#678
post #632
post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't equate this speech with violence. Oh I don't say you do. I am saying the need of so many people to do it suggests there's a distinct lack of violence to point at, otherwise they'd be pointing at it, instead of pointing at words. And since these people are highly motivated to find anything to point at, their failure to find it suggests maybe there's indeed not much political mob violence to find. > The level…

"There's no words that can make robots out of people" How do you explain cults? How do you explain the effects of advertising? How do you explain the uniform levels of discipline achieved by basic training? How do you explain phone scammers? How do you explain the success of the public relations industry? How do you explain Bernie Madoff? How do you explain cigarette smokers? How do you explain the effects of what we…

> How do you explain cults?

People have strong drive to belong to an in-group. There are multiple experiments that assigning random markers to random people and making them participate in certain activities lead to "group cohesion" effects and people start assigning deep meaning to those markers, despite them being completely random. Cult is just when people take it to the extreme - likely because they didn't find satisfaction for their in-grouping drive elsewhere.

> How do you explain the effects of advertising?

Which specifically effects? It's mostly brand recognition, aka availability heuristics - if you have brand A, B and C and you heard before that A is good, you're more likely to choose A than unknown B and C - and just plain informing people things like brand A exist. And a touch of in-grouping ("if you drink Coca-Cola, you are in a group of cool people"). And a tad of signaling ("if we have money to but expensive ad spot on TV, we must be a successful company that can afford to create good product, would not disappear tomorrow and values its reputation so we would not cheat you").

> How do you explain the uniform levels of discipline achieved by basic training

They are not that uniform, but again in-grouping plus other guys will be literally shooting at you (though research shows a lot of this shooting is much less targeted than previously thought).

> How do you explain phone scammers? How do you explain the success of the public relations industry?

That's plain persuasion, with various ethical fences either present or absent.

> Everyone of these consists of people being programmed or brainwashed in one way or another.

Again, if by "programmed" you mean "persuaded in something, in which they most likely inclined to believe from the beginning due to selection and grouping effects" then sure. People can be persuaded to buy a shampoo especially if they wanted to buy one already, and people can be deceived especially if they're already out to look for something the deceiver seemingly offers, and people can be blind to arguments especially if those arguments challenge their prejudices.

The only thing different here is tobacco smoking - that's physical addiction, it is a different mechanism.

> If you're interested in reading about this, there is a book by a psychologist named Robert Cialdini, called Influence, the Psychology of Persuasion.

Yeah I know about Cialdini. It has a lot of nice tricks, but it's not magic. It's much less magic then it's made out to be. And yes, reframing and anchoring is one of the tricks. If you watch Trump carefully, you can see all these tricks employed, he does it all the time. He didn't invent it of course - expensive stores have been putting items with outrageous prices on prominent display for ages, to make regular item prices seem lower in comparison. It does confuse some heuristics for people. But anybody is capable of approaching the prices - or Trump - rationally and see the actual price. There's no "programming" to prevent it - if one makes minimal effort, one can always do it.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#679
post #339

I can't wait for the word "toxic" to drop out of favor. It implies that the person is not just giving a bad opinion, but is in fact fundamentally flawed and dangerous. Arsenic isn't toxic because it had a bad day at work, arsenic is by its nature a deadly poison and you can't change it, only avoid it. The vast majority of people labeled "toxic", though, are just humans with a variety of opinions and beliefs, some you…

I kind of agree with you, but I think there's two threads here that need to be teased apart. I agree that people get considered toxic because they're expressing views that are unpopular within the group in question. All groups have their sacred cows and enemies (where the belief in the truth of these views is often spread socially rather than developed intellectually), and people tend to not look kindly upon someone…

I suspect the two are being conflated, and not entirely accidentally. In many social circles, going against someone's sacred cow is viewed as essentially no different from going well out of your way to be rude or argue in bad faith. This offers a signal advantage - it means it becomes acceptable to silence people who you disagree with on the basis that they're behaving badly.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? What if Clinton had won and started a nuclear holocaust? Who's to blame then? You must be opposed to all political advertising for the party you don't like because somehow you're able to see that it's bad and the other half of the population isn't. That's being hopelessly blinded by partisanship.

I'm opposed to all political advertising period, and would have also considered a Clinton presidency non-optimal, though likely more stable than what we have now. I'm fine with the down votes, but it should be pretty obvious that it would have been Marco Rubio, or some other sanitary GOP member who got elected if it wasn't for the Russian troll brigade on the internet whipping up a frenzy for Trump. That's my only po…

it should be pretty obvious that it would have been Marco Rubio, or some other sanitary GOP member who got elected if it wasn't for the Russian troll brigade on the internet whipping up a frenzy for Trump

You raise a wonderful point. Personally, I don't think a "Russian troll brigade" was singularly more effective than all the other attempts to affect the election, but if there was an influence, it certainly may have been greater in the GOP primary than in the general election.

But despite having read an awful lot of election analysis, I don't think I've ever heard anyone else make this point. I've only ever seen the issue framed as Trump vs Clinton, with almost all the proponents of the "Russian hacking" narrative being on the pro-Clinton side.

Besides yourself, does there exist a group of pro-Rubio (or perhaps more interestingly pro-Cruz) supporters who believe that Russia successfully influenced the election in support of Trump? Is there somewhere online I could read more about this worldview?

Post reply on HN