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

81–90 of 407 posts

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

#81

Post by infodroid »

josefresco wrote: post #24
infodroid wrote: post #5

Someone needs to put a stop to this bad meme... On social media, advertising is not an endorsement of the content. This might be the case for traditional media, but social media is different. Advertisers and platforms need to recognize the difference, to accept the lack of control over user-generated content as a feature, and to push back on unfair criticism. But perhaps their real goal is increasing their control ov…

"This might be the case for traditional media, but social media is different. " Please explain. Unlike "traditional social media" Reddit is organized into "like-minded" or themed mini-communities. Advertisers certainly know the type of content posted to these communities.

I'm thinking of the bigger picture here, especially taking into account the way YouTube was unfairly attacked.

The whole point of social media is for users to generate the content and to decide for themselves what makes content good or bad. In the past, advertising would fund the service, targeting specific demographics. It was never seen as endorsement of specific content.

Now advertisers want to start dictating the terms, to decide what specific content they approve of. Social media starts to look like traditional, sponsored, top-down media. This defeats the whole purpose.

Social media is selling out, and we are mistakenly cheering this on as a good thing.

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

#82

Post by coffeevradar »

argv_empty wrote: post #42
malvosenior wrote: post #8

I would love to see a statement from Reddit/Twitter... explicitly stating that they will remain politically neutral. There’s certainly content that should legally be taken down, there’s probably content that isn’t advertising friendly and could be taken down. It seems like these companies are being very slanted in their evaluation of the latter category. Basically right leaning = bad, left leaning = good. All I want…

The subs I've heard about banning were echo chambers dedicated to the idea that "this group of people I don't like ought to be [starved|exiled|thrown from helicopters|raped|enslaved]" and such things. If that makes you think the policy is "right leaning = bad, left leaning = good," that says some pretty nasty things about the modern right, doesn't it?

There are plenty of left-wing subreddits with equal measures of vitriol. Somehow they avoid earning the same opprobrium that the right-wing ones do. This apparent double standard creates the appearance of bias.

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

#83

Post by zurn »

koolba wrote: post #71
zurn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody can agree on what "politically neutral" means, it's not a useful criterion. Every subreddit listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_Reddit_communiti... could be argued to be political and protected under "political neutrality".

> Nobody can agree on what "politically neutral" means, it's not a useful criterion. It's pretty easy for a tech platform to be politically neutral. All you need are objective rules for how content "get to the top" and equal opportunity for whatever system is in place to be abused. That last one is the problem though. Regardless of which side is doing it, there's a sense of unfairness felt by the other side when they…

I think the "All you need are objective rules" part is just going to square one.

> > Every subreddit listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_Reddit_communiti.... could be argued to be political and protected under "political neutrality".

> Do you seriously consider unconsenting upskirt photos of women[1] political speech? Not just, free speech, but specifically "political speech"?

No, and I'd kindly ask you not to attribute such a position to me.

But I'm willing to bet someone does think it's political speech. See also NAMBLA, etc. And consider that gay rights boosters would have been put in the same basket a while ago.

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

#84

Post by zeveb »

argv_empty wrote: post #42
malvosenior wrote: post #8

I would love to see a statement from Reddit/Twitter... explicitly stating that they will remain politically neutral. There’s certainly content that should legally be taken down, there’s probably content that isn’t advertising friendly and could be taken down. It seems like these companies are being very slanted in their evaluation of the latter category. Basically right leaning = bad, left leaning = good. All I want…

The subs I've heard about banning were echo chambers dedicated to the idea that "this group of people I don't like ought to be [starved|exiled|thrown from helicopters|raped|enslaved]" and such things. If that makes you think the policy is "right leaning = bad, left leaning = good," that says some pretty nasty things about the modern right, doesn't it?

You're ignoring the subs which are the same thing, from a leftward slant. It does say some pretty nasty things about mankind, that so many of us love to hate.

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

#85

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

sandworm101 wrote: post #27
malvosenior wrote: post #8

I would love to see a statement from Reddit/Twitter... explicitly stating that they will remain politically neutral. There’s certainly content that should legally be taken down, there’s probably content that isn’t advertising friendly and could be taken down. It seems like these companies are being very slanted in their evaluation of the latter category. Basically right leaning = bad, left leaning = good. All I want…

>> content that isn’t advertising friendly and could be taken down. That is a dangerous road. Today they might be taking down otherwise legal content with which advertisers do not want to be associated. Tomorrow they are being asked to remove content with which advertisers disagree. Suddenly my 1000-word rant on the evils of Microsoft's latest OS is being taken down. Rather than being a free space for discussion, red…

> Rather than being a free space for discussion, reddit will have become just another moderated online forum where nothing of note ever happens.

It already is. Even if you removed the mods, the hive-mind would moderate unpopular ideas to oblivion anyway.

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

#86

Post by empath75 »

infodroid wrote: post #5

Someone needs to put a stop to this bad meme... On social media, advertising is not an endorsement of the content. This might be the case for traditional media, but social media is different. Advertisers and platforms need to recognize the difference, to accept the lack of control over user-generated content as a feature, and to push back on unfair criticism. But perhaps their real goal is increasing their control ov…

I’m sorry but if you’re advertising on a platform for hate groups, you’re financially supporting them, and I can choose not to do business with you because of it.

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

#87

Post by daxorid »

argv_empty wrote: post #42
malvosenior wrote: post #8

I would love to see a statement from Reddit/Twitter... explicitly stating that they will remain politically neutral. There’s certainly content that should legally be taken down, there’s probably content that isn’t advertising friendly and could be taken down. It seems like these companies are being very slanted in their evaluation of the latter category. Basically right leaning = bad, left leaning = good. All I want…

The subs I've heard about banning were echo chambers dedicated to the idea that "this group of people I don't like ought to be [starved|exiled|thrown from helicopters|raped|enslaved]" and such things. If that makes you think the policy is "right leaning = bad, left leaning = good," that says some pretty nasty things about the modern right, doesn't it?

The larger point is that TPTB tend to ban groups that want communists thrown from helicopters, but are absolutely fine with groups that want fascists thrown from helicopters.

There's a fundamental imbalance in how the standard is applied, and it's clearly ideological.

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

#88

Post by [deleted] »

tdb7893 wrote: post #60
malvosenior wrote: post #8

I would love to see a statement from Reddit/Twitter... explicitly stating that they will remain politically neutral. There’s certainly content that should legally be taken down, there’s probably content that isn’t advertising friendly and could be taken down. It seems like these companies are being very slanted in their evaluation of the latter category. Basically right leaning = bad, left leaning = good. All I want…

It's hard because people will always be mad when their stuff gets taken down and it's hard to tell where the line is. A good example on reddit is that r/the_Donald is often very racist, islamophobic, and misogynistic (and it's not a small portion, often the top comment on a post will be something that is islamophobic) but they don't see themselves as that way. I don't think they should ban that sub but even being imp…

[deleted]

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

#89

Post by ProAm »

malvosenior wrote: post #8

I would love to see a statement from Reddit/Twitter... explicitly stating that they will remain politically neutral. There’s certainly content that should legally be taken down, there’s probably content that isn’t advertising friendly and could be taken down. It seems like these companies are being very slanted in their evaluation of the latter category. Basically right leaning = bad, left leaning = good. All I want…

> politically neutral

There is no such thing as politically neutral when there is money involved. And Reddit owes VC a lot of money.

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

#90

Post by cannonedhamster »

bitL wrote: post #74
cannonedhamster wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly does one put a warning on "Posting here may cause you to get death threats, brigaded, doxxed, etc..."? I think Reddit's problems are that their most fervent users are their biggest problems. They actively encourage trolls. Whatever was good about Reddit needs a better site to go to.

You can simply blur the post like Quora does and by clicking on it it would reveal. There is already one mechanism in place by voting threshold, but very popular posts in certain subreddits might not be ad-friendly. I am looking at social media as a form of reinforcement learning, especially the exploration phase; by censoring it the exploration phase is significantly weakened, leading to worse results in the end. So…

Reddit's problems go far deeper than just the type of content they have though. Specifically, the fact that it creates a space for polarizing opinions and encourages groupthink through the upvote system would seem to be anathema to what most advertisers are looking for. Perhaps they can start running the same advertisers as Alex Jones and Breitbart who don't seem to be as shy of divisive content.
Post reply on HN