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.
That's the problem with allowing downvotes.
Allowing only upvotes means once an idea passes a certain threshold number of supporters, then it can be highlighted. But if you allow downvotes, then ideas popular only with the minority get downvoted back into oblivion by the majority. Resulting in a system where only the majority's ideas survive to be highlighted.
It seems like such a minor thing, but it creates a vastly different environment. One toxic to the premise of democracy - that new, disruptive and unpopular ideas can gradually build up support until they supplant the old majority viewpoint. That can't happen if the majority essentially has veto power over any new ideas contrary to their long-held beliefs.
As bad as hate speech is, if your underlying premise is that on balance people are good and that if given all sides of an argument they will usually make the right choice, then the proper way to fight hate speech isn't to ban it. It's to counter it by informing people of the contrary arguments. Otherwise you throw the speck which will grow into a baby out with the bathwater.
Do bikers mix with the cocktail crowd when they go out for dinner on the town? They do not.
Do teenage girls go to the same concerts as 80 year old women? They do not.
We are defined not merely by what we are but what we are not. Various ideologies are defined in part by their opposition to other ideologies. Given world views conflict.
The mistake of the social networking people is putting everyone in the same room. That was the error.
Nazis are going to exist.
Jihadis are going to exist.
Communists are going to exist.
Evangelical Christians are going to exist.
Etc etc etc... You don't put them all in the same social network. You segregate.
You can have common areas for mainstream groups but keep places open for fringe groups to go or they'll intrude into the mainstream space given no alternative.
Also do not presume to control who believes what by controlling the flow of information.
As the man said: "The internet views censorship as damage and routes around it."
Savvy?
Provide space for NON-ILLEGAL fringe groups to congregate and leave them unmolested in those spaces. Do not censor people.
These are the mistakes. Fix them and the issue goes away.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The Donald is about the worst trash sub there and breaks as many site rules as any of the other banned subreddits, and further it dosent get a significant amount of guilding (money donated for that post) compared to other subreddits yet it is allowed to stay up. Consistency in enforcing the rules would wipe out alt right Reddit subs including T_D leading to mass hysteria, direct threats of violence, racial and sexist slurs, and basically everything else on the checklist to get you banned.
On ARS, I skip through the sea of group think upvoted comments and look for those with down-votes. Some are trollish comments, many are insightful, factual, and/or present a solid point.
It is a great display of how group mentality works.
It would be interesting if we could have an option to rate "controversial" posts higher. Something like a fractional bonus awarded to the count of offsetting moderations: 3 up mods and 2 down mods would result in 2 x fractional_bonus points added to the score.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
A better solution is logarithmic progression: after N votes, a moderation is 1/Nth of a vote, so that a massive number of votes shows, but only marginally. (1 over N squared may be needed to achieve the required result)
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Reddit and the Struggle To Detoxify the Internet
The CEO wrote a script that redirected insults to him towards prominent members of a group.
Does anyone not see how these two statements don't jive with each other?
Let's say you're a real city slicker, and you're travelling between cities and you stop in at a rural diner for a bite to eat. Or you're some other sort of outsider. Any sort of scenario where a bunch of people are going to see how "people like you" are going to behave. This is going to form stereotypes. To an extent, you are representing the group. Now.... do you spit on the trucker, throw your drink at the waitress, scream wildly, and run away from the bill? Do you purposely antagonize them?
Now, these guys are douchbags, sure. They're certainly not initiating a calm and rational debate. And you know what? I can excuse a bit of tomfoolery and funny shenanigans. But as far as "detoxifying the Internet".... I have to agree, manipulating the words of your users because they said mean things to you is pretty fucked, and it's really not helping.
Just wanted to let you know this is strong with the neoliberal left and almost nonexistent with the progressive left. I definately lean progressive left to the point I can't stomach mainstream democratic candidates and I, like most progressives, aren't on board with SJW facist bullshit in general. People who trample on 1st amendment rights in the name of corporate protections to hate and discriminate disgust me as I hope they would disgust any American.
The Internet was built by people who didn't understand the difference between ostracism and bullying. Neither did anybody else at the time, and if anything, people struggle even harder to tell them apart nowadays. This lack of understanding causes terrible damage in all sorts of ways, most of which are beyond the scope of this thread, buy I'll point to Geek Social Fallacy #1 ("Ostracizers are evil") as one of the major factors behind what happened next.
Essentially, the Internet has no effective way to ostracize people because it was created by people who mistook it for bullying. But as a result, it is being taken over by people who really, really need to be ostracized, and who often are in offline contexts. They come online because it's easier to escape off to The Great Enabler rather than confront the reasons nobody wants them around, but the latter is what they really need to be doing. And we have no way to force them into it now.
Oh dear, oh dear, everyone is out to get you.
The truth is much simpler: people just don't want to waste their time listening to your drivel.
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.
I agree that slashdot has failed, but i think the reason is different. Back in its heyday, stories in the firehose which were voted up made the front page. Today, voting doesn't really matter; the editors find and post stories according to their own agenda (e.g. Trump bashing and SWJ stories). That filter/selection process by the editors far outweighs any moderation.