Reddit Will 'Hide' Vile Content After Policy Change

AmiMoJo writes: It will be more difficult to find "abhorrent" content posted to community news site Reddit, the site has announced. It stopped short of banning the material outright and instead will require users to log-in to access it. The company reiterated its existing complete bans of illegal content, including child abuse images and so-called "revenge porn." Chief executive and co-founder Steve Huffman told users: "We've spent the last few days here discussing, and agree that an approach like this allows us as a company to repudiate content we don't want to associate with the business, but gives individuals freedom to consume it if they choose."

Comments

Can someone answer me this?

[WOOFYGOOFY]

I don't understand why the following doesn't solve all discussion board problems with trolls. OK here goes:

1) the ability to declare someone either interesting or a troll (or neither) and have such cumulative count public.

2) have the option to hide from your view all posts by poster X

3) have the option to hide all poster's posts hidden by one or more posters you think are interesting

4) have a reputation report available on each poster, including yourself, on how many or what % of posters are hiding that posters posts and how many of those posters you marked interesting.

Done.
\
RESULT:

1) you can learn from long timers who the trolls are and inherit their preferences.

2) you can block someone without declaring him to be a troll

3) you can see how people see you. Trolls whose posts aren't seen go away.

Slashdot has something like this in prototype. But it seems simple to me. Implement that and you're basically done.

Seriously, what am I missing?

Re:Can someone answer me this?

[nickweller]

"Seriously, what am I missing?"

This bit, it's called brigading ..

What is "brigading" and how do you do it?

Re:Can someone answer me this?

[Last Warrior]

This is not a troll. Ive been on /. for a very long time. I left /. for a very long time and came back more recently. /. has a niche. even with that people still complain about the moderation system here.
Are you guys (and gals) seriously implying that reddit should basically be turned into /.
Aside from the stupidity that they are currently embroiled in, I can't see another way to more effectively destroy reddit than to try to implement the /. principles there.
Reddit is a social site first and then a news and information site second. To leave moderation in the hands of a few select people takes most of the social aspects away from people.

The strength of reddit is in the community and not in the content. there is probably as much or more garbage that goes through reddit as good and interesting content. The benefit is that the worst of it is obscured through a subscription model where you only subscribe to the groups that you are interested in.
Moderators already have to much power and pull there. and The shadowbanning nonsense, while i can understand the original intent, is being abused by people with power to silence people they disagree with.

Im a member of both of these communities. What reddit does now is going to determine whether they go the way of the dodo (Digg) or they continue to be a viable social community for discussion of any topics of interest to people. Hate groups can stay in their little silos and feel like they can have their free expression as long as it doesn't trickle out into unrelated groups. Subscribing to those groups should come with a stern warning or two to make sure that people with sensibilities know to avoid it.

I cant stand the hate and vitriol. The hate groups are a blemish on the internet and the world. But if people start banning that speech, that means they have the power to ban other unpopular speech or even people they disagree with.

Not Good Enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as long as /r/coontown and it's ilk continue to exist with thousands of subscribers.

Reddit can't profit from hate and expect my patronage.

Re:Meanwhile in SRS business continues as usual

[meta-monkey]

Your sig is a good explanation of the way voting on reddit is supposed to work. An upvote doesn't necessarily mean you agree with something. You're supposed to upvote things that "add to the discussion" and downvote things that do not, regardless of agreement.

For this reason, "brigading" is a bad thing. If, say, a bunch of chocolate pudding afficiandoes on /r/chocolatepudding watch the general /r/pudding sub, and any time vanilla pudding is mentioned, they post a link to the thread and everybody from /r/chocolatepudding goes to downvote the pro-vanilla comment, that's not really helpful. The vanilla pudding comment was adding to the discussion, but not expressing an opinion the chocolate pudding crowd liked. Downvoting it en mass is bullshit.

SRS is /r/shitredditsays, a forum wherein people notice "offensive" things said on other subs, and post links to them. The entire purpose of the sub is to post links to comments and posts you don't like. And gee, I guess maybe if other people don't like them too, they might, I don't know...go downvote those comments?

And of course they go beyond merely downvoting that one post. Some redditors have been known to go through somebody's entire post history, downvoting everything they've ever said. Or worse, sleuthing their real identity, and harassing them offline, or contacting their employer and trying to get them fired for something "offensive" they've said under a pseudonym online.

So, how can the problem be "harassment" and "doxxing" when SRS is still allowed to exist?