Slashdot Mirror
Reddit and the Struggle To Detoxify the Internet (newyorker.com)
In an article published on The New Yorker this week, Andrew Marantz discusses the state of free speech on the Web and takes a look at Reddit, the internet's fourth-most-popular site, after Google, YouTube, and Facebook. Some excerpts from the story: On November 23, 2016, shortly after President Trump's election, Reddit CEO Steve Huffman was at his desk, in San Francisco, perusing the site. It was the day before Thanksgiving. Reddit's administrators had just deleted a subreddit called r/Pizzagate, a forum for people who believed that high-ranking staffers of Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign, and possibly Clinton herself, were trafficking child sex slaves. The reason for the ban, according to Reddit's administrators, was not the beliefs of people on the subreddit, but the way they'd behaved -- specifically, their insistence on publishing their enemies' private phone numbers and addresses, a clear violation of Reddit's rules. [...] Some of the conspiracy theorists left Reddit and reunited on Voat, a site made by and for the users that Reddit sloughs off. Other Pizzagaters stayed and regrouped on r/The_Donald, a popular pro-Trump subreddit. Throughout the Presidential campaign, The_Donald was a hive of Trump boosterism. By this time, it had become a hermetic subculture, full of inside jokes and ugly rhetoric. The community's most frequent commenters, like the man they'd helped propel to the Presidency, were experts at testing boundaries. Within minutes, they started to express their outrage that Pizzagate had been deleted.
Redditors are pseudonymous, and their pseudonyms are sometimes prefaced by "u," for "username." Huffman's is Spez. As he scanned The_Donald, he noticed that hundreds of the most popular comments were about him: "fuck u/spez", "u/spez is complicit in the coverup". One commenter simply wrote "u/SPEZ IS A CUCK," in bold type, a hundred and ten times in a row. Huffman, alone at his computer, wondered whether to respond. "I consider myself a troll at heart," he said later. "Making people bristle, being a little outrageous in order to add some spice to life -- I get that. I've done that." Privately, Huffman imagined The_Donald as a misguided teen-ager who wouldn't stop misbehaving. "If your little brother flicks your ear, maybe you ignore it," he said. "If he flicks your ear a hundred times, or punches you, then maybe you give him a little smack to show you're paying attention."
Although redditors didn't yet know it, Huffman could edit any part of the site. He wrote a script that would automatically replace his username with those of The_Donald's most prominent members, directing the insults back at the insulters in real time: in one comment, "Fuck u/Spez" became "Fuck u/Trumpshaker"; in another, "Fuck u/Spez" became "Fuck u/MAGAdocious." The_Donald's users saw what was happening, and they reacted by spinning a conspiracy theory that, in this case, turned out to be true. "Manipulating the words of your users is fucked," a commenter wrote.
Redditors are pseudonymous, and their pseudonyms are sometimes prefaced by "u," for "username." Huffman's is Spez. As he scanned The_Donald, he noticed that hundreds of the most popular comments were about him: "fuck u/spez", "u/spez is complicit in the coverup". One commenter simply wrote "u/SPEZ IS A CUCK," in bold type, a hundred and ten times in a row. Huffman, alone at his computer, wondered whether to respond. "I consider myself a troll at heart," he said later. "Making people bristle, being a little outrageous in order to add some spice to life -- I get that. I've done that." Privately, Huffman imagined The_Donald as a misguided teen-ager who wouldn't stop misbehaving. "If your little brother flicks your ear, maybe you ignore it," he said. "If he flicks your ear a hundred times, or punches you, then maybe you give him a little smack to show you're paying attention."
Although redditors didn't yet know it, Huffman could edit any part of the site. He wrote a script that would automatically replace his username with those of The_Donald's most prominent members, directing the insults back at the insulters in real time: in one comment, "Fuck u/Spez" became "Fuck u/Trumpshaker"; in another, "Fuck u/Spez" became "Fuck u/MAGAdocious." The_Donald's users saw what was happening, and they reacted by spinning a conspiracy theory that, in this case, turned out to be true. "Manipulating the words of your users is fucked," a commenter wrote.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Except that on slashdot the comment moderators are at least somewhat randomized. They're not a fixed cadre of ideologues.
Downvotes could be used to identify controversial ideas - often the most interesting parts of the discussion. A troll will have mostly downvotes. A platitude will be overwhelmingly positive. The real gritty, interesting stuff will have both up and downvotes.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Slashdot's moderation style is still hands down the best I've seen. I wish more sites adopted it.
I would actually pay money for a good Slashdot moderation style site for discussion other than technology.
It's a circle-jerk echo chamber
With unlimited up/down modding, which just reinforces the statement above.
Slashdot is just as bad.
I read /. with zero posts hidden, and you know what? 95% of posts modded down really desperately deserve to be modded down. They're not modded down because they're controversial; they're modded down because they are trolls and assholes trying to be offensive and shocking.
There may be 5% of the downmodded posts that are controversial, but I'd guess probably not even 5%-- and even there, it's likely that the opinion is expressed while offhandedly calling other people posting a "cuck" or a "snowflake" or a "libtard" (or, a "rethuglican", take your pick, left or right) or a "smelly chimp lover".
comment threads without moderation are toxic.
Yet your post is here. You are free to moderate their posts and they are free to moderate yours. Seems fair to me.
Sorry, I don't buy this. I'm following online discussions of controversial topics for more than 20 years now, and I cannot recall many instances where these would really and genuinely be enlightening or beneficial to anyone. This is extremely rare. The best thing you can get from such discussions is unreliable, superficial knowledge by testimony that you have to check manually with other sources anyway before you can trust it. In other words, I don't think that online forums are good for discussing controversial topics. Even the local pub fares better in terms of civility, reasonableness, politeness and overall friendliness, listening to each other, rational exchange of standpoints and ideas, constructive dialogue, etc.
On Usenet we used killfiles, they were a somewhat of a solution to keep the crackpots and conspiracy theorists at a distance, though not ideal. Centralized forums like Slashdot don't want to empower users, so they don't give them the same functionality.
In my opinion, civil public online discourse with anonymity or pseudonymity is only possible with a combination of heavy moderation, temporary IP banning, and shadow-banning. It has nothing to do with left or right or freedom of speech or anything like that, it's just a matter of common sense and extensive experience that without moderation and bans the number of toxic shitposters will raise above a critical threshold. Trolls and crackpots, whether they do it for fun or because they have mental problems or political agendas, have way more time at hand than reasonable people. This is a fact of life.
Forums with less moderation work fine in smaller communities oriented towards common goals. But even these usually need quite drastic measures against hostile takeovers at hand - see IRC wars, etc.
Echo chambers: These exist, but people who are susceptible to becoming seriously influenced in their life by their online participation in a "circle jerk echo chamber" have much more of a problem than just these echo chambers. Most people do not have this problem. Nowadays there is 0 problem of getting good information on practically anything. On the contrary, we're swamped in insanely accurate and fast news, which leads to a distorted negative perception of reality. Echo chambers are only a problem for certain personalities who would find their echo chamber in real life if they don't find it online.
I've been on Slashdot under many different handles almost since its inception, and I would say that in the past 5 years or so it has failed. Why? Probably just because more people are online, and you only get along with most people personally, not by "discussing controversial topics" but by dealing with them in daily interactions. There are still forums that work, reddit is not bad in fact, and I spend more time on another forum that I do not want to mention in order not to get trolls any ideas.
There's a difference between admin and user moderation.
If I were to post on this site about how the Holocaust was faked, I'd be downmodded into oblivion (I hope). On certain subreddits, you could be upmodded for such things. And sure, you can believe that Hillary Clinton is running a child sex trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor, and that's all fun and games until someone starts shooting a gun inside.
Like many on this site, I'm a proponent of free speech -- but with user moderation to prevent stupidity. One of the problems with Reddit is that subreddit nature creates echo chambers. As many have pointed out before, websites are private businesses and have a right to kick people out whom they don't like. If someone walks into your pizza parlor and accusing you of running a child sex trafficking ring, you can ask them to leave -- and that's not censorship -- any more than it is a bar kicking out a rowdy patron.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.