10 ms·

Reddit cracks down on abuse as CEO apologizes for trolling the trolls

• meira 10y ago
  "Trolling the trolls" is a very stupid euphemism. The mainstream media is losing all credibility built in the past decades and seems to not be able to figure out how to halt the proccess (while changing nothing about the "values" [and people] they protect).
  • tossaway1 10y ago
    "Trolling the trolls" was language spez used. What does this have to do with the mainstream media?
    • meira 10y ago
      Top down narrative. Reddit CEO didn't troll the trolls, it was a huge mistake that can put in check the entire company. TechCrunch could write 99 better stories about this issue than this piece of propaganda. It also reminds me Hillary campaign (and their MSM friends) calling half of US voters deplorable.
      • MBCook 10y ago
        He changed statements against him by trolls of the_donald to say the_donald so it appeared they were insulting themselves. Seems like a (mild) form of trolling to me.
        • deleted 10y ago
          [deleted]
    • jessriedel 10y ago
      > "Trolling the trolls" was language spez used. In this case it would be appropriate to put quotation marks in the article title.
  • inimino 10y ago
    Techcrunch is MSM now?
    • meira 10y ago
      And Google. And Facebook.
• Mao_Zedang 10y ago
  This is how moderator/admin abuse is done now, selective enforcement of the rules, even HN is guilty of this sometimes.
• luzia19 10y ago
  that is so meta...
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• minimaxir 10y ago
  Former Reddit CEO Ellen Pao made a good comment on the controversy: https://reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/5frg1n/tifu_by_editing_some_comments_and_creating_an/damuzhb/?context=1 https://reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/5frg1n/tifu_by_e...
  • boomzilla 10y ago
    That's very childish and lame for Steve Huffman to say "Ellen wasn't the first Reddit engineer, so she probably lacked the expertise to do it, and even if she did, she was smart enough to not". I think this guy needs to grow up.
    • michaelvoz 10y ago
      Yeah, he is a child. I can't imagine a CEO of any company I have ever worked at acting as such. I wonder how employees of reddit feel at the moment?
      • Mao_Zedang 10y ago
        nervous.
      • retrogradeorbit 10y ago
        I cannot understand how the board hasn't dismissed him over the comment editing subterfuge. It's simply not how a CEO should behave. No matter what is being said about him. Basically, by not firing him, the board is sending a message. It is saying that 1. The platform and it's comments cannot be trusted. and 2. That it's ok for employees to surreptitiously edit comments. If the CEO did it and didn't get fired, then how could they fire a lower level employee for doing it? The CEO has set the standard through his own behaviour. And that is now the culture of reddit. By not dismissing the CEO, the board has sent the message that they accept this behaviour.
    • AceJohnny2 10y ago
      I think you're misreading this. I understand it to mean: "She didn't have the technical knowledge of the internals nor the past experience of doing such hacks to do this"
• perseusprime11 10y ago
  Isn't Reddit a platform for trolls? Even Quora these days has become crazy to read through all the silly stuff.
• michaelvoz 10y ago
  I would hardly call this an apology. Also kind-of bold of him to use this as a platform to implement new abusive rules. I don't like the subreddit, but selective enforcement and targeting a single community is very toxic to what little trust I had left in the reddit admins.
  • meritt 10y ago
    The problem is they aren't their own little community. They actively target, brigade (large group upvoting/downvoting), and intentionally troll other communities with their only goal being to fuck with people and overwhelmingly push their rhetoric. Reddit strives to have a positive community and when you let the trolls run the system, you end up with an utter cesspool (e.g. https://voat.co/ https://voat.co/), and that kills your company's value. Reddit (nor Twitter) is under no obligation to be a platform for free speech, and it's completely within their right to dictate who gets to participate and what they're allowed to discuss.
    • michaelvoz 10y ago
      If that is true, then they should present evidence of such action and ban it! Applying rules with extremely heavy discrimination is never the way to manage a community.
      • meritt 10y ago
        They have, overwhelmingly. The problem is it's an anonymous platform and bans are irrelevant for most internet users today. This was all nicely summarized by John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory in 2004.
        • michaelvoz 10y ago
          Pardon, I should have been clearer - ban the subreddit.
          • ajkjk 10y ago
• MK999 10y ago
  Since #PizzaGate is the backdrop, I learned a few minutes ago about the breitbart podesta tweet. Maybe it will interest someone https://twitter.com/AndrewBreitbart/status/33636278100561920 https://twitter.com/AndrewBreitbart/status/33636278100561920
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• volak 10y ago
  I don't really want to comment - but I'd just say to anyone (including the writer of this article) to imagine someone artificially limiting the impact of your favorite platform of free expression. Hell just turn the mental corner and consider your arguments FOR net neutrality. Or try to recall your disappointment every time you read about some site being banned in China or Iran. To China and Iran - facebook is a "disruptive community." To use reddit's language. Its a sad moment in history that the people calling themselves liberals don't actually know what it means.
  • Mao_Zedang 10y ago
    Like facebook maybe this is just them pivoting to countries like China and Iran?
  • freehunter 10y ago
    It's more along the lines of fixing a bug in the system. It's not about flushing out an ideology like TD wants you to think. They're exploiting Reddits code to have more weight than similarly sized communities. Reddit is balancing that. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with these guys actively exploiting the voting system.
    • Mao_Zedang 10y ago
      if (subreddit == "the_donald") fixTheBug() else notABug()
  • colechristensen 10y ago
    The subreddit in question manipulates the algorithm in bad faith and bans any sort of dissent or disagreement. They're not attacking free expression but trying to reign in abuse of their platform. Nobody really knows what "liberal" means because it's been used in several very opposite ways in different times and places.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
• watty 10y ago
  Calling people you disagree with "trolls" and dismissing censoring as just "trolling" is a poor attempt at an apology. And that's coming from someone who hates /r/the_donald.
  • kristianov 10y ago
    Calling part of their user base trolls is just dehumanization, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of fair treatment.
    • freehunter 10y ago
      Calling a troll a troll is not dehumanization. Especially when spez called HIMSELF a troll and said he was trolling and was raised as a troll.
  • unlikelymordant 10y ago
    There were a lot of comments whos only content was "fuck u/spez". I saw quite a few and I don't subscribe to the donald. This is obviously not constructive commenting, its just plain abuse. If you insult the donald mods you'll be instantly banned (from the subreddit), so it's not like the subreddit should find banning users for abuse strange.
  • ajkjk 10y ago
    Calling trolls 'trolls' is pretty reasonable, though, so what you're really saying is that you don't think they're trolls, whereas other people do? We could run a poll or something to find out, or listen to arguments from both sides, to get to the bottom of that. I don't want to do that. I just want to highlight that it is very plausible that many people view them as trolls. Not because of their views, because of their behavior (there are thousands examples, right?). So then we have a problem -- If your default stance when someone disagrees with you (about whether the word 'troll' is fair here) is asserting that they're manipulating language for political reasons, when there's clearly a very reasonable argument for the use of that language (whether or not you accept it, you have to agree there's an argument), then you're committing the same crime they are - manipulating language to unfairly vilify them.
• carsongross 10y ago
  I wonder how many comments per thread like this are typed and then abandoned by people saying "It just isn't worth it."
• walrus01 10y ago
  reddit does not owe alt-right assholes a zero-dollar platform to have a free forum. If alt right people want to run their own web forum they are more than welcome to find sufficient technical clue to rent a $250/mo dedicated server and install some http/https based forum software on it. people cry "censorship", but it's a private company, and if you're paying $0 they don't owe you anything. Set up your own system if you don't like what their management is doing. You'd think that ultra right wingers, of all people, would appreciate the irony of depending on somebody else's free forum because they're too lazy, incompetent or feckless to do it themselves.
  • watty 10y ago
    This isn't about left or right, it's about a CEO censoring opinions that he doesn't agree with. If it helps you understand, pretend he censored Hillary or Bernie supporters.
    • walrus01 10y ago
      It's not a CEO censoring anything, it's a subreddit of people who troll for the lulz having a minuscule example of their own tactics turned around upon them, for the fleeting amusement of somebody with admin access on the servers.
• 8gbFg4MF8QzsuZa 10y ago
  Nothing new and nobody should be surprised. Over 5 years ago I moderated a community that had extensive problems with a subset of very problematic users. This lead to real world problems and ultimately intervention from local law enforcement. It was during this time that I learned the admin team dealt with these times of users by working, not dealing, with them. It became evident that [a]dmins had been tipping off these users, keeping them one step ahead. As these admins were called out they would fall silent and the cycle would begin again.
• colechristensen 10y ago
  Does anyone else not care?
• shagie 10y ago
  Short version: * The steps to allow for censorship in the software and diminish the visibility of asshattery is a necessary thing. * It is unfortunate that it wasn't done before. * It is a pattern that has repeated itself many times over the decades. * Read A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy. * Web 2.0 puts too much work on too few people. Long version: One of the talks that was passed around (I think it was Everything2 that introduced me to it, but I could be wrong) is A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy ( http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html ). This goes to the problems and some necessary designs for social software - reddit is one such example. The story in that talk that this current episode reminds me of is that of Communitree: ---- > Communitree was founded on the principles of open access and free dialogue. "Communitree" -- the name just says "California in the Seventies." And the notion was, effectively, throw off structure and new and beautiful patterns will arise. > And, indeed, as anyone who has put discussion software into groups that were previously disconnected has seen, that does happen. Incredible things happen. The early days of Echo, the early days of usenet, the early days of Lucasfilms Habitat, over and over again, you see all this incredible upwelling of people who suddenly are connected in ways they weren't before. > And then, as time sets in, difficulties emerge. In this case, one of the difficulties was occasioned by the fact that one of the institutions that got hold of some modems was a high school. And who, in 1978, was hanging out in the room with the computer and the modems in it, but the boys of that high school. And the boys weren't terribly interested in sophisticated adult conversation. They were interested in fart jokes. They were interested in salacious talk. They were interested in running amok and posting four-letter words and nyah-nyah-nyah, all over the bulletin board. > And the adults who had set up Communitree were horrified, and overrun by these students. The place that was founded on open access had too much open access, too much openness. They couldn't defend themselves against their own users. The place that was founded on free speech had too much freedom. They had no way of saying "No, that's not the kind of free speech we meant." > But that was a requirement. In order to defend themselves against being overrun, that was something that they needed to have that they didn't have, and as a result, they simply shut the site down. ---- To me, Reddit is facing this exact same problem. It wants to be a place for free speech, but the right type of free speech. It also hasn't designed the necessary infrastructure of code to allow the community of not t_d to defend itself and maintain the type of content that that core community wants. And thus, backchannel slack channels to try to get people to tone it down a bit - because the software didn't support the necessary structures to prevent it from happening. That passage quoted above goes on: > Now you could ask whether or not the founders' inability to defend themselves from this onslaught, from being overrun, was a technical or a social problem. Did the software not allow the problem to be solved? Or was it the social configuration of the group that founded it, where they simply couldn't stomach the idea of adding censorship to protect their system. But in a way, it doesn't matter, because technical and social issues are deeply intertwined. There's no way to completely separate them. > What matters is, a group designed this and then was unable, in the context they'd set up, partly a technical and partly a social context, to save it from this attack from within. And attack from within is what matters. Communitree wasn't shut down by people trying to crash or syn-flood the server. It was shut down by people logging in and posting, which is what the system was designed to allow. The technological pattern of normal use and attack were identical at the machine level, so there was no way to specify technologically what should and shouldn't happen. Some of the users wanted the system to continue to exist and to provide a forum for discussion. And other of the users, the high school boys, either didn't care or were actively inimical. And the system provided no way for the former group to defend itself from the latter. > Now, this story has been written many times. It's actually frustrating to see how many times it's been written. You'd hope that at some point that someone would write it down, and they often do, but what then doesn't happen is other people don't read it. ---- I believe that the failing of Web 2.0 is that most people don't care. User moderated content is a great thing - when its moderated. Without that moderation (which often falls disproportionately on a very, very, small group) you end up with doing tech support for people who are either asses to the world or intentionally trying to make your job suck in a very hostile way. Back channels and trying to appeal to individuals doesn't scale. The software needs to support the necessary tools of moderation (which include censorship and banning).