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

Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 757 posts

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#711

Post by projektir »

kerkeslager wrote: post #639
projektir wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a bad metaphor. If your community is ignoring trolls instead of banning them, it's effectively sending the message that the trolls are very welcome. I've never observed that a no-moderation community is free of trolls, and ignoring trolls often results in them just taking over because they just start talking to each other and everyone else leaves. These things are caused poison because even a small amount ca…

> It's not a bad metaphor. If your community is ignoring trolls instead of banning them, it's effectively sending the message that the trolls are very welcome. I've never observed that a no-moderation community is free of trolls, and ignoring trolls often results in them just taking over because they just start talking to each other and everyone else leaves. Which form of trolls from my post are you talking about? I…

> Which form of trolls from my post are you talking about? I insist that we not pretend these are the same group of people.

I haven't found it particularly wortwhile to distinguish people who are saying terrible things to troll, or because they believe them. They're very often the same group, because reasonable, emphatic people are going to neither say nor believe those terrible things.

If you cannot carry a conversation with consideration for the other people in it, I do not want you in my community.

> There were plenty of reasonable conversations on Reddit before Conde Nast took over and dropped the banhammer.

I perceive Reddit as a very good example of the kind of community I _don't_ want, because any deep, complex, or otherwise not aligned with the popular discussion is impossible there, so I'm afraid we're at an impasse.

> But the alternative you're proposing is an echo chamber

Luckily, I haven't proposed an alternative, so it's rather interesting what imagined alternative you're making that statement about...

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#712

Post by projektir »

smsm42 wrote: post #594
projektir wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post is basically saying the problem is not worth looking at because it's too scary...

No it is not. It's saying if you're looking at something as if your private point of view is objective reality and dismissing the very existence of other points then the problem may not be where you looking for it.

"How do you know?", "What are you going to do?" "Everyone is different so we can't know anything for sure!" are very much defeatist, knee-jerk responses to someone doing something extremely important:

Presenting what the problem is.

The first step to solving a problem is understanding it. It's not solving it. Trying to solve a problem immediately is like trying to write code before you fully understand the requirements.

If you lack the mental fortitude to simply look at a problem without having an immediate solution to it, you're not going to be able to solve major, ugly, nasty, uncomfortable problems like this.

But, inevitably, these problems will show up and knock on your door. Running away from them is not a good plan.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#713

Post by anigbrowl »

derefr wrote: post #472
anigbrowl wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can easily put a square or a rectangular utility cover into the hole, because the length of the side is less than the diagonal. This isn't possible with a circular cover because the diameter is uniform.

The parent’s point is that a lip prevents this for every shape, by making the hole smaller than the side-length.

If only this were true for certain utility holes in my neighborhood with rectangular lids. I I've sprained my ankle a few times. I mean, they won't fall in accidentally because of the lip. But you can lift one out and put it in the hole, due to negligence or a taste for vandalism.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#714

Post by anigbrowl »

dragonwriter wrote: post #486
anigbrowl wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can easily put a square or a rectangular utility cover into the hole, because the length of the side is less than the diagonal. This isn't possible with a circular cover because the diameter is uniform.

> You can easily put a square or a rectangular utility cover into the hole Then why do rectangular (including square) and triangular manhole covers exist? Rectangular ones are quite common, triangular less so. Grandparent is correct, lips are what, in practice, prevents manhole covers from falling in, not being circular (which many are not.)

I don't know why rectangular utility holes exist, I assume cost.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#715

Post by cirgue »

taupefrancis wrote: post #455
enraged_camel wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a regular on Something Awful. One of the major factors that keeps it relatively clean is that user registration costs $10. That's a strong financial disincentive against trolling, bots, etc. I really believe that successful online communities of the future will have paid signups.

The Something Awful forums provided my first real exposure to 'internet culture'. I find myself reading their forums more and more often lately because discussions there seem less likely to devolve into an echo chamber. An account there is well worth the registration cost imo.

I think part of it is the lack of voting and the presence of easily-identifiable avatars: participants have an incentive to post things that generate maximum engagement and discussion with other specific users as opposed to maximum instantaneous agreement. In this regard it mirrors real-world social interaction much more closely than reddit/fb/twitter.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#716

Post by tmuir »

jessaustin wrote: post #710
tmuir wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you contend that human beings have not empirically measured the spherical, or roughly spherical shape of the Earth?

If parent had been talking about chemistry or physiology or any subject that can be explored via controlled experimentation, I wouldn't have complained. Instead the topics were geological and evolutionary history, which seem very much not "empirical". Not that I suspect that those sciences are wrong in any sense, but words have meanings.

I misread gp as saying "flat Earth", and not "young Earth". My apologies. I would agree that even if we can point to things like nylonase or the speed of light coupled with known distances to stars, those are deduced facts. Whereas astronauts have empirically observed the spherical nature of earth.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#717

Post by kerkeslager »

projektir wrote: post #711
kerkeslager wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not a bad metaphor. If your community is ignoring trolls instead of banning them, it's effectively sending the message that the trolls are very welcome. I've never observed that a no-moderation community is free of trolls, and ignoring trolls often results in them just taking over because they just start talking to each other and everyone else leaves. Which form of trolls from my post are you talking about? I…

> Which form of trolls from my post are you talking about? I insist that we not pretend these are the same group of people. I haven't found it particularly wortwhile to distinguish people who are saying terrible things to troll, or because they believe them. They're very often the same group, because reasonable, emphatic people are going to neither say nor believe those terrible things. If you cannot carry a conversa…

> I haven't found it particularly wortwhile to distinguish people who are saying terrible things to troll, or because they believe them. They're very often the same group, because reasonable, emphatic people are going to neither say nor believe those terrible things.

> If you cannot carry a conversation with consideration for the other people in it, I do not want you in my community.

Okay, you can want whatever you want, and I understand why you want that. I also have the gut reaction to someone saying something bigoted where I to avoid the person so I don't have to see it, or respond with vitriol and ostracization, because that's what feels good in the moment. But if people continue to insist on putting their head in the sand and take actions that feel good rather than actions that actually address the problem, these problems are only going to get worse.

> I perceive Reddit as a very good example of the kind of community I _don't_ want, because any deep, complex, or otherwise not aligned with the popular discussion is impossible there, so I'm afraid we're at an impasse.

I have had fairly in-depth conversations and said plenty of unpopular stuff on Reddit all the time, so I'm not sure what you're basing this.

> Luckily, I haven't proposed an alternative, so it's rather interesting what imagined alternative you're making that statement about...

You said, "If your community is ignoring trolls instead of banning them, it's effectively sending the message that the trolls are very welcome."

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#718

Post by hnuser1234 »

saurik wrote: post #629
hnuser1234 wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I don't believe in trying to control people at such a low level? What if I think people should be allowed to be as ranty as they want without having to worry about being "disincentivized"?

Facebook and YouTube already do stuff like this: "too many people are just having fun clicking like on funny images instead of typing long comments, so let's increase the newsfeed and recommendation penetration of posts and videos with more comments... oh, shit, but now we are promoting flame wars as the best way to get more comments is to troll people".

While my policy might seem similar to theirs, were I in their shoes, I wouldn't be trying to promote content just for generating comments. Number of comments isn't a particularly useful measure for anything other than.. measuring how much discussion the content creates, it's no indication about the quality of that discussion.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#719

Post by white-flame »

defined wrote: post #545
white-flame wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you agree that they're "toxic" to communication , which I stated. But I wouldn't say they, for example, reduce "enlightenment"; they're a product of not being "enlightened" (for whatever measure you use). All of these are products of the failings/weaknesses of humanity, not causes of them. Their presence is to be expected and crops up in everybody, not just in some "toxic" subset of people that can be excluded.

This is true, but “toxicity” seems to arise much more frequently in some people than others. In Robert Sutton’s book, “The No Asshole Rule”, he describes what it takes to be a “certified asshole”: > A person needs to display a persistent pattern, to have a history of episodes that end with one “target” after another feeling belittled, put down, humiliated, disrespected, oppressed, de-energized, and generally worse ab…

I think what this boils down to, and is extremely apparent in those quotes, is communication skills & style.

People with very controversial beliefs (and in a free & diverse society, everything is controversial in some relative axis, hence we need to extend measures of freedom to each other) can still act civilly, or they can flail and be problematic on forums. That's not a feature of their beliefs, but a feature of their behavior (stubbornness, arrogance, etc). People who have fully "correct thinking" in some scope can also be disruptive, poorly behaved members of discussion-based communities.

Re: Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet

#720

Post by milesrout »

allthenews wrote: post #449
s73v3r_ wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It does not bother you that dozens of serious contemporary, controversial topics, with severe consequences for our society, are regularly censored on websites like reddit under the guise of so called toxicity?" I think you're gonna have to provide an example for this. An example of something that is being labeled as toxic, but wouldn't appear to be.

The problem is not that the topics themselves are toxic, but that only one point of view is identified as such. I only mention these "flamebait" topics as examples, not to discuss them or choose a side. Gamergate Gender Equality/Equity Affirmative Action White Privilege The various subjects in James Damore's recent memo [note, he was fired for honest, sourced feedback that was explicitly requested of him] Politics in…

I suspect I might be feeding the troll, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Gamergate might have very initially been about 'ethics in games journalism', but it didn't stay that way very long. It was very quickly infested with racist, sexist trolls. All that stuff with the lady that supposedly slept with someone to get good reviews, or whatever? Turned out that was total bunk. That was proved within a couple of weeks.

Guess what, KotakuInAction still exists. It doesn't really matter whether the initial idea was right, though. If they'd been right initially, their later actions would still be wrong. And they were wrong initially in reality, and it hasn't stopped them from continuing their shit.

For quite a long time, I dismissed the criticisms of Gamergate because I really had nothing to do with it. I read the initial couple of news articles and watched a couple of videos with some outrage and kind of went 'yeah no shit, IGN gets paid to give good reviews, not news'. I then basically ignored them for years. I would hear that they were toxic this or problematic that and I dismissed it, because I thought their initial points seemed solid enough.

Then when I actually went back and looked at it, it had basically turned into TheRedPill. KotakuInAction and GamerGate are really not worth defending.

---

The rest of the topics are pretty similar: all differing levels of controversial, and with echo chamber subreddits heartily happy to advocate for them and heartily happy to advocate against them.

The word 'toxic' is only used by one of those sides, but the other side generally uses far worse language to describe their 'opponents' if you want to use that term. I think being described as 'toxic' is a little better than being described as 'worthy of being shot' or whatever other horrible things people in TRP, The_Donald and such tend to say.

Plus sometimes echo chambers are actually good. When you want to discuss the finer points of something, being able to just say 'this is not a subreddit for debating the merits of ideology X just because it's called /r/X, go to /r/DebateX please' is fine. One of the biggest problems with reddit is that in comparison to old-style forums it's so ephemeral. Other than the (maximum 2) stickies and sidebar links there's little in the way of permanent material in any subreddit, so you end up having the same introductory surface-level discussions again and again and again.

Reddit is a social news website first and foremost. It's not good at discussions at all.

Post reply on HN