23 ms·

This is an A+ study which seems to confirm that banning subreddits can be an effective way to silence their inhabitants. "Fat hatred" as an epidemic has largely

This is an A+ study which seems to confirm that banning subreddits can be an effective way to silence their inhabitants. "Fat hatred" as an epidemic has largely disappeared since 2015, for example. It's nice to get some hard data to counter the theory that if you ban a subreddit consisting of undesirables, they'll simply invade other parts of reddit and continue. In reality, the other parts of reddit aren't nearly so tolerant. So what's the implication? Well, ban judiciously. Getting rid of places that fester hatred is like putting out a fire. But it's obviously very tricky to do this. See /r/physicalremoval for an example of a sub that was just banned for inciting violence.

naraniano 9y ago
My two cents: I liked those two subreddits. They were fun, and I'm pretty sure only a very small subset of the regular users did ACTUALLY hate black people or fat people (I'm fat myself!). But evidently if those subs get banned, there's no point on spewing hate against black or fat people in other subs because 1) most of us weren't actually racist/...antifatist? and were just trying to have fun, making jokes around some common subject and 2) nobody cares about your political views if you're not in a political sub, so you keep it there.
- chasing 9y ago
  You enjoyed getting on those subreddits to spewing hate against black or fat people. Not because you're racist or "antifatist." But because it's fun? Although you do consider those your political views (making fun of people for being black or fat)? I'm confused. And appalled.
  - naraniano 9y ago
    I consider those to be political views. Thinking black people are inferior is a political view. Thinking fat people should be accountable of their own mistakes, and that healthcare should be taken off them, is a political view also. Not my political views, though.
    - chasing 9y ago
      But the rest is accurate. You like going on those subreddits and play-acting like you're a racist or fat-shamer just for the fun of it.
      - naraniano 9y ago
        Exactly. The same at night, I log into my World of Warcraft account, and play-act like I'm a night elf druid, because it's fun.
        willvarfar 9y ago
        Playing night elf Druids in computer games doesn't hurt others. Your participation on the forums did. You like hurting people for fun? How do you sleep at night?
        ManlyBread 9y ago
        In some multiplayer games just playing them hurts other people up to the point where they experience something very similar to a mental breakdown, all because you're on their team and you're performing poorly. It all comes down to the emotion management. My countrymen - and by extension me - have been called thieves and equated to animals countless times. My race has been blamed for all the evils in the world. Yet, I don't care - none of this has any potential to hurt me, it's just words on the internet and I'd rather follow the famous mantra of Tyler The Creator than pretend I'm being hurt somehow.
    - spacemanmatt 9y ago
      > Thinking black people are inferior is a political view. No, that's not a political view. That's plain old racism. Politics has to do with money and power. Thinking black people are inferior is white supremacy. Don't conflate that reasonable positions taken in politics.
      - deong 9y ago
  - glenstein 9y ago
    I think the "fun" comes from the sport of seeing how far they can go in provoking other people by taking extreme behaviors and speaking about them in a casual, normalizing tone. Which, needless to say, is childish, wasteful of everyone's time on account of its disingenuousness, and doesn't reflect well on one's personal character or maturity.
- hood_syntax 9y ago
  > just trying to have fun >> Their banner featured a cartoon of a black man hanging, with a Klansman in the background Haha, look at this picture of a black man being lynched, isn't it so fun? Fuck off
- mfoy_ 9y ago
  Well... I think you can have "fun" without it being at anyone's direct and unwilling expense for reasons beyond their control. That aside, even if most of the users "weren't taking it seriously" it creates the kind of environment where being hateful is tolerated and celebrated... not exactly the kind of community anyone should want to encourage or participate in.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - guildwriter 9y ago
    My experience with online communities is that while you don't have to have fun at other people's expense, it's a large subset of what people like to do. For better or for worse a lot of people like to say or do things that push boundaries. Sometimes it's actual hate and sometimes it's not. This kind of behavior goes way back with humanity in general. Trickster heroes have existed in mythos across all cultures and while they do things that are at the expense of others, rarely is it out of malice. More recent example: https://livestreamfails.com/post/6039 https://livestreamfails.com/post/6039 For those who can't watch: A female streamer is playing PUBG when she is "downed" by other players. Said players then play the ISIS theme that has been played on ISIS execution videos over voice chat before shooting her character in the head. Are these players tolerating and celebrating ISIS or are they deliberately being offensive for humor? Or some other motivation? For good reason people find this behavior objectionable, but at the same time I don't see how you're going to force people to stop doing things like this.
- cortesoft 9y ago
  When fun causes pain to other people, it isn't a type of fun worth having.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Like boxing?
    - fixermark 9y ago
      Non-consensual pain
      - KGIII 9y ago
        Didn't one need to direct their browser to intentionally visit the subs in question?
        grzm 9y ago
        People drain swamps and other areas where stagnant water collects to deprive mosquitos of places to breed and grow and affect the population at large, not because they want to visit those places. Please take some time to reflect and interpret other's comments charitably and arguing their strongest interpretation, not their weakest. It'll help you understand others better and make your own arguments stronger and contribute more productively.
        KGIII 9y ago
        That seems like a great analogy until I remember that we built DC on a drained swamp. Again, their statement was that if it involved pain then it was unacceptable. I pointed out boxing, they mentioned concentual. I pointed out that the user consented when they visited the URL. I mean, come on... The two big ones were coontown and fatpeoplehate. What the hell did they think was going to be there?
        pjc50 9y ago
- AndrewStephens 9y ago
  “We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” - Kurt Vonnegut Jr. I read comments like yours - "I'm not really a bad person, it was just a prank, Bro!" from time to time and I think it betrays a real lack of understanding on how human interaction works. It is one thing to make a joke about fat people in some private setting among friends who know you and will take your words ironically. But to make the same joke in a public sub that was explicitly set up to ridicule fat people conveys a very different meaning. It means that you condone the sentiment behind the sub and agree with those users (perhaps a minority perhaps everyone else on there except you, who knows?) that do harbor malice towards others. By joining in you give such people strength and encouragement. Reddit was right to ban those subs. You were wrong to participate. (This doesn't make you a bad person in general, we all make mistakes.)
  - hackinthebochs 9y ago
    >But to make the same joke in a public sub that was explicitly set up to ridicule fat people conveys a very different meaning. How is a sub dedicated to ridiculing fat people more like a public space than a private setting?
    - guildwriter 9y ago
      I think the argument is that it's a space that is accessible by everyone without any sort of gatekeeping, that makes it a public space. Whereas a forum such as somethingawful would be considered more private as there is a subscription fee for membership.
      - hackinthebochs 9y ago
        To me the issue isn't the lack of literal gatekeeping, its the intended audience. If I'm having a conversation in public with my friends, I still have a reasonable expectation that my conversation is "private" as long as I make an effort to keep it among those in my group. That someone could walk by, eavesdrop and overhear something objectionable doesn't meaningfully alter this dynamic. I see subreddits as similar to this. The fact that there is a specific URL that indicates its topic is enough gatekeeping to warrant the conversations as "private", in terms of who is the expected target of the conversation. In the case of fatpeoplehate, the insulation of the content of the sub makes it reasonable to expect that consumers of the content will be "in on the joke". Objecting to the content because its in a "public space" and therefore not appropriate for public consumption doesn't make sense.
- busterarm 9y ago
  Fat person here. I _LOVED_ r/fatpeoplehate. Was one of my all-time favorite subreddits and the last reason I still went to the site long after I deleted my account. Occasionally it was a pretty motivating place to be. Obesity should not be encouraged, nor normalized.
  - blueline 9y ago
    How can it be motivating when they literally had a rule that "former fatties" were not allowed? Their official policy was that if you were ever fat, at any point, you were not welcome and worthy of ridicule. If you find that motivational as a fat person, I think you might have a different problem altogether.
    - busterarm 9y ago
      I browsed understanding that I was not welcome and worthy of ridicule. I was not a former fatty, I was then and am currently a fatty. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that our society sets up the conditions for people to literally (slowly) kill themselves, knowing full well that I do that myself. Yes, my behavior is absolutely worthy of ridicule and should be.
      - blueline 9y ago
        Ridicule is not a healthy way to correct 'bad' behaviors. Even aside from the fact that I fundamentally disagree that people should feel bad for being obese - Aside from the typical externalities of excessive eating and sedentary lifestyle - your comment is baffling to me. The social cost of the negative outcomes of ridicule directed at obese people - lifelong stunted self-confidence, eating disorders, depression, suicide, etc. - FAR outweigh the few cases where people like yourself might find this productive/helpful. Do you really believe that ridicule is a reasonable way for society to deal with this (or any) issue?
        busterarm 9y ago
        "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down" works extremely effectively in many cultures. I'm not saying there's other downsides to using that tool, but it is extremely effective. S.Korea & Japan are in the lowest three obesity rates for a reason. (Third being Italy)
hood_syntax 9y ago
> can be an effective way to silence their inhabitants Although that is true, the authors note that they merely shifted to alternative platforms. It's not really getting rid of the problem, just moving it somewhere else.
- chasing 9y ago
  People don't seem to understand that a lot of negative behavior exists in a context, and if you remove the context, the negative behavior can largely disappear. It doesn't necessarily just go elsewhere.
  - bandrami 9y ago
    This gets to a Harvard study I now can't find that suggested that anonymity online is a red herring. Anonymous and whatever the opposite is (named? nonymous?) people are equally likely to follow community norms -- anonymous people are actually slightly more likely to. The problem is not the anonymity, the problem is the community norms, which in the banned subs were horrible.
    - glaslong 9y ago
      Do you know the title, author or journal by any chance? This sounds interesting, but it seems my google skills are lacking.
      - bandrami 9y ago
        Sorry for the delay; it was (ironically) deep in my HN comment history: https://blog.coralproject.net/the-real-name-fallacy/ https://blog.coralproject.net/the-real-name-fallacy/
- DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
  > they merely shifted to alternative platforms That's not the paper's findings: > Though many subreddits saw an influx of r/fatpeoplehate and r/CoonTown “migrants,” those subreddits saw no significant changes in hate speech usage. In other words, other subreddits did not inherit the problem
istorical 9y ago
The danger of censorship lies in the idea that while the initial generation of censors may have benevolent intentions, a future actor who inherits those powers to stifle communication or censor ideas may use them to subtly shift discourse or the overton window, push an agenda, or control people. Why do free speech proponents fear the precedent being set by Reddit or Twitter to ban those they consider hate speech? They fear it because of the idea that over the course of years or decades that same power of censorship (or even just cultural idea that censorship is OK) may slowly move away from being used on obvious bad actors and hate speech and into the censorship of groups that don't deserve it. Today's well-intentioned stifling of hate speech is the same set of tools and culture that could enable totalitarianism tomorrow. Edit: I was asked who I'm referring to as a free speech proponent. I would cite Zeynep Tufekci as being a really interesting author in this space as her works specifically examines how technology and social media is changing the politics of dissent and revolution. Here's an interesting article discussing her book: https://latest.13d.com/will-direct-democracy-give-way-to-authoritarianism-direct-democracy-movements-powerful-vulnerable-febe6e75a953 https://latest.13d.com/will-direct-democracy-give-way-to-aut... "With the rise of social media in 2005, the networked public square shifted from blogs and websites to “massive, centralized platforms where visibility [is] often determined by an algorithm controlled by a corporation, often with the business model seeking to increase pageviews.” Traditional mass media, once the gatekeepers of social movements, were replaced by a few, very powerful “chokepoints” that monopolize ad dollars and users while encouraging surveillance. Facebook’s “real name” policy, for instance, can snuff out a movement before it even begins. ... To be effective, censorship in the digital era requires a reframing of the goals of censorship not as a total denial of access...but as a denial of attention, focus, credibility...Censorship by disinformation focuses on attention as the key resource to be destroyed...Rand Corporation researchers refer to this method of propaganda as the “firehose of falsehood.” The primary goal is simple: to confuse and overwhelm the “audience”...The result is a frayed, incoherent, and polarized public sphere that can be hostile to dissent...” This goal can unfurl in a number of ways, but platforms always play a central role. We have witnessed it with Russia’s army of trolls. With the stream of fake news that clouded Trump’s election. And with the governments of Turkey and Russia, which have maintained their grip on power by demonizing “alternative sources” of media—the kinds of sources where movements are likely to flourish—while ramping up control of traditional media. In other instances, platforms have made behind-the-scenes-deals with repressive regimes in order to allow access to their users. In places where Facebook is the internet, social movements have little recourse but to submit to the terms of the deal. ... Because “these platforms own the most valuable troves of user data and control the user experience, they wield power to decide winners and losers for people’s attention."
gragas 9y ago
>"Fat hatred" as an epidemic has largely disappeared since 2015, for example. It doesn't really matter, though. The great thing about the "fat hatred" epidemic is that voicing an opinion about it doesn't change hard truths. Fat people will still face the consequences---good and bad---of their lifestyle choices. They will die earlier than the rest; They will burden the health care system more than the rest. But they may live happier lives. The more interesting thing to examine is areas of society which have more significant negative externalities. Things like politics and ethics. Censoring one political agenda and promoting another can cause widespread changes which affect even those who do not agree. Reverting those changes is either impossible, or will take decades. For example, I can choose not to be fat. The marginal benefit of promoting a healthy lifestyle is distant and probably negligible: perhaps insurance premiums will drop slightly in the future because everyone is healthier on average. But do I really care about that? No. The marginal benefit of actually living a healthy lifestyle is far greater for me than vocally promoting it. On the other hand, passing laws which greatly increase immigration will absolutely affect me. The averaged values of a society will change dramatically. Once it has happened, I have no way to combat it, other than to move to a more homogeneous society which shares my values. We can see this even in the "most multi-cultural" place in the US. The Bay Area essentially self-segregates into primarily Indian towns, primarily Asian towns, etc. We also see hoardes of people moving out, because they do not appreciate the culture promoted by the wave of others moving in. I personally know multiple people who chose lower compensation at Salesforce over higher compensation elsewhere specifically because there are more Indians at Salesforce. I also know people who refuse to work there because there are so many Indians. I believe that censoring "hatred" is more akin to ignoring your problems than to solving them.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  There is mounting evidence that being fat isn't necessarily a choice. It is in some cases, but see http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fecal-transplant-linked-womans-weight-gain/story?id=28758104 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fecal-transplant-linked-womans-... A woman became obese after a fecal transplant -- hinting at the complexity of how obesity works in the body, experts say. The unnamed woman weighed 136 pounds -- but gained 34 pounds over the next 16 months -- going from a healthy body mass index to an obese one, according to a case study published in an Oxford Journal called Open Forum for Infectious Diseases. "The patient actually said this: 'From the moment I had the fecal transplant, I felt like a switch flipped in my body,'" said. Dr. Colleen Kelly, a gastroenterology at the Warren Alpert School of Brown University. "She felt like prior to the fecal transplant, she had never had to worry about weight."
emodendroket 9y ago
> "Fat hatred" as an epidemic has largely disappeared since 2015, for example. As a person who sometimes reads Reddit, it's really surprising to me to hear that's the case. It seems like the same kind of invective comes out every time the subject comes up.
- MrRadar 9y ago
  It's way less prevalent than it used to be. I remember how for a while right after FPH became popular pretty much every post that hit the front page would have "found the fatty" or similar comments. Thankfully that shit mostly stopped (or at least seemed to) after FPH was banned and this paper shows it was a real change in the culture of Reddit rather than just my perception of it.
  - imaginenore 9y ago
    You're confusing making fun / criticisms of with hatred. Fat acceptance movement is absolutely batshit insane, it promotes unhealthy lifestyles, it causes early deaths, it costs billions of dollars, it increases everyone's insurance costs. I'm yet to see anything of scale on reddit/voat that represents hate of fat people, and not of the lifestyle or the dumb ideas that the movement comes up with.
    - kevinh 9y ago
      The subreddit was literally named /r/fatpeoplehate.
      - imaginenore 9y ago
        Yes, it was about the things that fat people hate. Not about the hatred of fat people.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        That is definitely not true. Nobody who read posters cackling about "hamplanets" could honestly believe that.
tomjen3 9y ago
Don't be too sure. Glancing at the link, all the test for is the usage of the same words that were used in the banned subreddits - but those are unlikely to be used as they would quickly get the account banned. Instead presumably the accounts would use a more subdued approach, but with little change in intent. The approach also fails to account for users who go to alternative sites.
BlackjackCF 9y ago
It just seems like all of the shittiness that was on Reddit migrated over to Voat. Voat is a fucking cesspool of gross.
- dawnerd 9y ago
  Better to contain it at least. I'm all for free speech, but those people (and the general immaturity) made me leave reddit for good.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- bduerst 9y ago
  Even Voat has had to draw a line in the sand regarding content and began banning communities: https://voat.co/v/announcements/163288 https://voat.co/v/announcements/163288
- MBCook 9y ago
  It's too bad that they didn't have access to data about other sites like 4chan and Voat to see if they saw an increase correlated to the amount of people who left Reddit.
- tajen 9y ago
  and Gab.ai and 9Gag.
- intended 9y ago
  > In a sense, Reddit has made these users (from banned subreddits) someone else’s problem. To be clear, from a macro persepctive, Reddit’s actions likely did not make the internet safer or less hateful. section 6.6 of the paper. I argue that this paper capstones the pathway to concentrate, sequester, fester and finally eradicate hate subs from a single platform. It just moves elsewhere and then begins to adapt. Also - Suppose the study was turned on its moral head, and people applied its lesson to bannign subs focused on "social equality", "improving one self", "making a better world" = what would the implications of that be. In the hands of an attacker, what does this paper say?
mtgx 9y ago
I'm not sure the fire analogy is that apt. I imagine the hatred in those people still exists and if it can't resurface on Reddit, it might resurface elsewhere. Of course a study to back this up would be nice, but this is my theory.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
orblivion 9y ago
> Getting rid of places that fester hatred is like putting out a fire I assumed this was the mental model of those who would suppress "hate speech". Here's the problem: if there's a nugget of important truth hidden somewhere in there, something people won't say in public but which is vital, then you're not putting out a fire, you're putting a lid on a boiling pot. You can try to stop the steam from escaping but eventually it'll blow up in your face.
- rgossiaux 9y ago
  Yeah, I'm not sure being super racist against black people or telling fat people to kill themselves is really an "important truth" though...
  - orblivion 9y ago
    I agree. I see those as symptoms (assuming there's anything there at all). The important question is whether there's something driving them to that state.
    - vanderZwan 9y ago
      Well, whatever the initial cause is, clearly having a platform is one of the bigger drivers, and removing it seems like the appropriate response
    - fatbird 9y ago
      It might be that we miss some key insight into Ebola or virology by trying as hard as possible to contain and eradicate it. Still, we restrict ourselves to studying it in a lab, rather than treating an outbreak as the place to find a possible nugget of truth. It's one of the most frustrating parts of discussions about this topic for me: we're constantly supposed to weigh the value of hypothetical goods and somehow judge our commitment to freedom of expression by how far we're willing to go in defense of possible outcomes we can't even clearly articulate.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > The important question is whether there's something driving them to that state. No. There are millions (probably even tens of millions) of people who share circumstances with these racist/homophobic/misogynistic asshats and who never fall into these behaviours. You cannot excuse any of the *isms with economic anxiety or similar nonsense.
dredmorbius 9y ago
Fire is one metaphor, though I lean far more strongly to epidemiological parallels. Hatred is an operational state, as is illness. Both progress as information is spread through a population. That requires reservoirs or sources, and vectors of transmission, as well as susceptible carriers. By disrupting the reservoirs, limiting the vectors, and innoculating the carriers, you can treat epidemics of both disease and antisocial ideology.
eighthnate 9y ago
> This is an A+ study which seems to confirm that banning subreddits can be an effective way to silence their inhabitants. Was a study needed for that? It's really isn't a good study because it doesn't say anything. > It's nice to get some hard data to counter the theory that if you ban a subreddit consisting of undesirables, they'll simply invade other parts of reddit and continue. In reality, the other parts of reddit aren't nearly so tolerant. But they did invade, that's why all of reddit became censored. > So what's the implication? There are no implications. Censorship works. There are reams and reams of studies that show that. It's why you won't see much tiannamen square stuff on chinese internet, go any lgbt stuff on russian internet or atheist stuff on saudi internet. People are celebrating this study which essentially says "water is wet". Yeah we know.
kerkeslager 9y ago
Have you been to Voat?
intended 9y ago
I think some conclusions are being drawn too soon, from a study which cautions > In a sense, Reddit has made these users (from banned subreddits) someone else’s problem. To be clear, from a macro persepctive, Reddit’s actions likely did not make the internet safer or less hateful. From section 6.6 - > Recent work has shown that some banned subreddit users migrated to other social media sites like Voat, Snapzu, and Empeopled [29]. The banning of r/fatpeoplehate and r/CoonTown led to the rise of alternatives on Voat.co, for example, where the core group of users from Reddit reorganized. For instance, in another ongoing study, we observed that 1,536 r/fatpeoplehate users have exact match usernames on Voat.co. The users of the Voat equivalents of the two banned subreddits continue to engage in racism and fat-shaming [22, 45]. In a sense, Reddit has made these users (from banned subreddits) someone else’s problem. To be clear, from a macro persepctive, Reddit’s actions likely did not make the internet safer or less hateful. One possible interpretation, given the evidence at hand, is that the ban drove the users from these banned subreddits to darker corners of the internet. As I recall - it took time for Coon town and FPH to metastize. That the metastizing process may well be REQUIRED, to get a critical mass which results in a succesful cleansing. Further this study is based on specific keywords, which the researchers took great pains to curate - but human ability to hide improves with practice - the change of lexicon to words that Wont be easy to track with basic lists. FINALLY - People should flip this on its head - should reddit or any site be compromized, and suppose subs which "fight for equality and freedom and goodness for the world" are banned - what would this study imply?

naraniano 9y ago

My two cents: I liked those two subreddits. They were fun, and I'm pretty sure only a very small subset of the regular users did ACTUALLY hate black people or fat people (I'm fat myself!). But evidently if those subs get banned, there's no point on spewing hate against black or fat people in other subs because 1) most of us weren't actually racist/...antifatist? and were just trying to have fun, making jokes around some common subject and 2) nobody cares about your political views if you're not in a political sub, so you keep it there.

chasing 9y ago
You enjoyed getting on those subreddits to spewing hate against black or fat people. Not because you're racist or "antifatist." But because it's fun? Although you do consider those your political views (making fun of people for being black or fat)? I'm confused. And appalled.
- naraniano 9y ago
  I consider those to be political views. Thinking black people are inferior is a political view. Thinking fat people should be accountable of their own mistakes, and that healthcare should be taken off them, is a political view also. Not my political views, though.
  - chasing 9y ago
    But the rest is accurate. You like going on those subreddits and play-acting like you're a racist or fat-shamer just for the fun of it.
    - naraniano 9y ago
      Exactly. The same at night, I log into my World of Warcraft account, and play-act like I'm a night elf druid, because it's fun.
      - willvarfar 9y ago
        Playing night elf Druids in computer games doesn't hurt others. Your participation on the forums did. You like hurting people for fun? How do you sleep at night?
        ManlyBread 9y ago
        In some multiplayer games just playing them hurts other people up to the point where they experience something very similar to a mental breakdown, all because you're on their team and you're performing poorly. It all comes down to the emotion management. My countrymen - and by extension me - have been called thieves and equated to animals countless times. My race has been blamed for all the evils in the world. Yet, I don't care - none of this has any potential to hurt me, it's just words on the internet and I'd rather follow the famous mantra of Tyler The Creator than pretend I'm being hurt somehow.
  - spacemanmatt 9y ago
    > Thinking black people are inferior is a political view. No, that's not a political view. That's plain old racism. Politics has to do with money and power. Thinking black people are inferior is white supremacy. Don't conflate that reasonable positions taken in politics.
    - deong 9y ago
- glenstein 9y ago
  I think the "fun" comes from the sport of seeing how far they can go in provoking other people by taking extreme behaviors and speaking about them in a casual, normalizing tone. Which, needless to say, is childish, wasteful of everyone's time on account of its disingenuousness, and doesn't reflect well on one's personal character or maturity.
hood_syntax 9y ago
> just trying to have fun >> Their banner featured a cartoon of a black man hanging, with a Klansman in the background Haha, look at this picture of a black man being lynched, isn't it so fun? Fuck off
mfoy_ 9y ago
Well... I think you can have "fun" without it being at anyone's direct and unwilling expense for reasons beyond their control. That aside, even if most of the users "weren't taking it seriously" it creates the kind of environment where being hateful is tolerated and celebrated... not exactly the kind of community anyone should want to encourage or participate in.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- guildwriter 9y ago
  My experience with online communities is that while you don't have to have fun at other people's expense, it's a large subset of what people like to do. For better or for worse a lot of people like to say or do things that push boundaries. Sometimes it's actual hate and sometimes it's not. This kind of behavior goes way back with humanity in general. Trickster heroes have existed in mythos across all cultures and while they do things that are at the expense of others, rarely is it out of malice. More recent example: https://livestreamfails.com/post/6039 https://livestreamfails.com/post/6039 For those who can't watch: A female streamer is playing PUBG when she is "downed" by other players. Said players then play the ISIS theme that has been played on ISIS execution videos over voice chat before shooting her character in the head. Are these players tolerating and celebrating ISIS or are they deliberately being offensive for humor? Or some other motivation? For good reason people find this behavior objectionable, but at the same time I don't see how you're going to force people to stop doing things like this.
cortesoft 9y ago
When fun causes pain to other people, it isn't a type of fun worth having.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Like boxing?
  - fixermark 9y ago
    Non-consensual pain
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Didn't one need to direct their browser to intentionally visit the subs in question?
      - grzm 9y ago
        People drain swamps and other areas where stagnant water collects to deprive mosquitos of places to breed and grow and affect the population at large, not because they want to visit those places. Please take some time to reflect and interpret other's comments charitably and arguing their strongest interpretation, not their weakest. It'll help you understand others better and make your own arguments stronger and contribute more productively.
        KGIII 9y ago
        That seems like a great analogy until I remember that we built DC on a drained swamp. Again, their statement was that if it involved pain then it was unacceptable. I pointed out boxing, they mentioned concentual. I pointed out that the user consented when they visited the URL. I mean, come on... The two big ones were coontown and fatpeoplehate. What the hell did they think was going to be there?
        pjc50 9y ago
AndrewStephens 9y ago
“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” - Kurt Vonnegut Jr. I read comments like yours - "I'm not really a bad person, it was just a prank, Bro!" from time to time and I think it betrays a real lack of understanding on how human interaction works. It is one thing to make a joke about fat people in some private setting among friends who know you and will take your words ironically. But to make the same joke in a public sub that was explicitly set up to ridicule fat people conveys a very different meaning. It means that you condone the sentiment behind the sub and agree with those users (perhaps a minority perhaps everyone else on there except you, who knows?) that do harbor malice towards others. By joining in you give such people strength and encouragement. Reddit was right to ban those subs. You were wrong to participate. (This doesn't make you a bad person in general, we all make mistakes.)
- hackinthebochs 9y ago
  >But to make the same joke in a public sub that was explicitly set up to ridicule fat people conveys a very different meaning. How is a sub dedicated to ridiculing fat people more like a public space than a private setting?
  - guildwriter 9y ago
    I think the argument is that it's a space that is accessible by everyone without any sort of gatekeeping, that makes it a public space. Whereas a forum such as somethingawful would be considered more private as there is a subscription fee for membership.
    - hackinthebochs 9y ago
      To me the issue isn't the lack of literal gatekeeping, its the intended audience. If I'm having a conversation in public with my friends, I still have a reasonable expectation that my conversation is "private" as long as I make an effort to keep it among those in my group. That someone could walk by, eavesdrop and overhear something objectionable doesn't meaningfully alter this dynamic. I see subreddits as similar to this. The fact that there is a specific URL that indicates its topic is enough gatekeeping to warrant the conversations as "private", in terms of who is the expected target of the conversation. In the case of fatpeoplehate, the insulation of the content of the sub makes it reasonable to expect that consumers of the content will be "in on the joke". Objecting to the content because its in a "public space" and therefore not appropriate for public consumption doesn't make sense.
busterarm 9y ago
Fat person here. I _LOVED_ r/fatpeoplehate. Was one of my all-time favorite subreddits and the last reason I still went to the site long after I deleted my account. Occasionally it was a pretty motivating place to be. Obesity should not be encouraged, nor normalized.
- blueline 9y ago
  How can it be motivating when they literally had a rule that "former fatties" were not allowed? Their official policy was that if you were ever fat, at any point, you were not welcome and worthy of ridicule. If you find that motivational as a fat person, I think you might have a different problem altogether.
  - busterarm 9y ago
    I browsed understanding that I was not welcome and worthy of ridicule. I was not a former fatty, I was then and am currently a fatty. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that our society sets up the conditions for people to literally (slowly) kill themselves, knowing full well that I do that myself. Yes, my behavior is absolutely worthy of ridicule and should be.
    - blueline 9y ago
      Ridicule is not a healthy way to correct 'bad' behaviors. Even aside from the fact that I fundamentally disagree that people should feel bad for being obese - Aside from the typical externalities of excessive eating and sedentary lifestyle - your comment is baffling to me. The social cost of the negative outcomes of ridicule directed at obese people - lifelong stunted self-confidence, eating disorders, depression, suicide, etc. - FAR outweigh the few cases where people like yourself might find this productive/helpful. Do you really believe that ridicule is a reasonable way for society to deal with this (or any) issue?
      - busterarm 9y ago
        "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down" works extremely effectively in many cultures. I'm not saying there's other downsides to using that tool, but it is extremely effective. S.Korea & Japan are in the lowest three obesity rates for a reason. (Third being Italy)

hood_syntax 9y ago

> can be an effective way to silence their inhabitants Although that is true, the authors note that they merely shifted to alternative platforms. It's not really getting rid of the problem, just moving it somewhere else.

chasing 9y ago
People don't seem to understand that a lot of negative behavior exists in a context, and if you remove the context, the negative behavior can largely disappear. It doesn't necessarily just go elsewhere.
- bandrami 9y ago
  This gets to a Harvard study I now can't find that suggested that anonymity online is a red herring. Anonymous and whatever the opposite is (named? nonymous?) people are equally likely to follow community norms -- anonymous people are actually slightly more likely to. The problem is not the anonymity, the problem is the community norms, which in the banned subs were horrible.
  - glaslong 9y ago
    Do you know the title, author or journal by any chance? This sounds interesting, but it seems my google skills are lacking.
    - bandrami 9y ago
      Sorry for the delay; it was (ironically) deep in my HN comment history: https://blog.coralproject.net/the-real-name-fallacy/ https://blog.coralproject.net/the-real-name-fallacy/
DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
> they merely shifted to alternative platforms That's not the paper's findings: > Though many subreddits saw an influx of r/fatpeoplehate and r/CoonTown “migrants,” those subreddits saw no significant changes in hate speech usage. In other words, other subreddits did not inherit the problem

istorical 9y ago

The danger of censorship lies in the idea that while the initial generation of censors may have benevolent intentions, a future actor who inherits those powers to stifle communication or censor ideas may use them to subtly shift discourse or the overton window, push an agenda, or control people. Why do free speech proponents fear the precedent being set by Reddit or Twitter to ban those they consider hate speech? They fear it because of the idea that over the course of years or decades that same power of censorship (or even just cultural idea that censorship is OK) may slowly move away from being used on obvious bad actors and hate speech and into the censorship of groups that don't deserve it. Today's well-intentioned stifling of hate speech is the same set of tools and culture that could enable totalitarianism tomorrow. Edit: I was asked who I'm referring to as a free speech proponent. I would cite Zeynep Tufekci as being a really interesting author in this space as her works specifically examines how technology and social media is changing the politics of dissent and revolution. Here's an interesting article discussing her book: https://latest.13d.com/will-direct-democracy-give-way-to-authoritarianism-direct-democracy-movements-powerful-vulnerable-febe6e75a953 https://latest.13d.com/will-direct-democracy-give-way-to-aut... "With the rise of social media in 2005, the networked public square shifted from blogs and websites to “massive, centralized platforms where visibility [is] often determined by an algorithm controlled by a corporation, often with the business model seeking to increase pageviews.” Traditional mass media, once the gatekeepers of social movements, were replaced by a few, very powerful “chokepoints” that monopolize ad dollars and users while encouraging surveillance. Facebook’s “real name” policy, for instance, can snuff out a movement before it even begins. ... To be effective, censorship in the digital era requires a reframing of the goals of censorship not as a total denial of access...but as a denial of attention, focus, credibility...Censorship by disinformation focuses on attention as the key resource to be destroyed...Rand Corporation researchers refer to this method of propaganda as the “firehose of falsehood.” The primary goal is simple: to confuse and overwhelm the “audience”...The result is a frayed, incoherent, and polarized public sphere that can be hostile to dissent...” This goal can unfurl in a number of ways, but platforms always play a central role. We have witnessed it with Russia’s army of trolls. With the stream of fake news that clouded Trump’s election. And with the governments of Turkey and Russia, which have maintained their grip on power by demonizing “alternative sources” of media—the kinds of sources where movements are likely to flourish—while ramping up control of traditional media. In other instances, platforms have made behind-the-scenes-deals with repressive regimes in order to allow access to their users. In places where Facebook is the internet, social movements have little recourse but to submit to the terms of the deal. ... Because “these platforms own the most valuable troves of user data and control the user experience, they wield power to decide winners and losers for people’s attention."

gragas 9y ago

>"Fat hatred" as an epidemic has largely disappeared since 2015, for example. It doesn't really matter, though. The great thing about the "fat hatred" epidemic is that voicing an opinion about it doesn't change hard truths. Fat people will still face the consequences---good and bad---of their lifestyle choices. They will die earlier than the rest; They will burden the health care system more than the rest. But they may live happier lives. The more interesting thing to examine is areas of society which have more significant negative externalities. Things like politics and ethics. Censoring one political agenda and promoting another can cause widespread changes which affect even those who do not agree. Reverting those changes is either impossible, or will take decades. For example, I can choose not to be fat. The marginal benefit of promoting a healthy lifestyle is distant and probably negligible: perhaps insurance premiums will drop slightly in the future because everyone is healthier on average. But do I really care about that? No. The marginal benefit of actually living a healthy lifestyle is far greater for me than vocally promoting it. On the other hand, passing laws which greatly increase immigration will absolutely affect me. The averaged values of a society will change dramatically. Once it has happened, I have no way to combat it, other than to move to a more homogeneous society which shares my values. We can see this even in the "most multi-cultural" place in the US. The Bay Area essentially self-segregates into primarily Indian towns, primarily Asian towns, etc. We also see hoardes of people moving out, because they do not appreciate the culture promoted by the wave of others moving in. I personally know multiple people who chose lower compensation at Salesforce over higher compensation elsewhere specifically because there are more Indians at Salesforce. I also know people who refuse to work there because there are so many Indians. I believe that censoring "hatred" is more akin to ignoring your problems than to solving them.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
There is mounting evidence that being fat isn't necessarily a choice. It is in some cases, but see http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fecal-transplant-linked-womans-weight-gain/story?id=28758104 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fecal-transplant-linked-womans-... A woman became obese after a fecal transplant -- hinting at the complexity of how obesity works in the body, experts say. The unnamed woman weighed 136 pounds -- but gained 34 pounds over the next 16 months -- going from a healthy body mass index to an obese one, according to a case study published in an Oxford Journal called Open Forum for Infectious Diseases. "The patient actually said this: 'From the moment I had the fecal transplant, I felt like a switch flipped in my body,'" said. Dr. Colleen Kelly, a gastroenterology at the Warren Alpert School of Brown University. "She felt like prior to the fecal transplant, she had never had to worry about weight."

emodendroket 9y ago

> "Fat hatred" as an epidemic has largely disappeared since 2015, for example. As a person who sometimes reads Reddit, it's really surprising to me to hear that's the case. It seems like the same kind of invective comes out every time the subject comes up.

MrRadar 9y ago
It's way less prevalent than it used to be. I remember how for a while right after FPH became popular pretty much every post that hit the front page would have "found the fatty" or similar comments. Thankfully that shit mostly stopped (or at least seemed to) after FPH was banned and this paper shows it was a real change in the culture of Reddit rather than just my perception of it.
- imaginenore 9y ago
  You're confusing making fun / criticisms of with hatred. Fat acceptance movement is absolutely batshit insane, it promotes unhealthy lifestyles, it causes early deaths, it costs billions of dollars, it increases everyone's insurance costs. I'm yet to see anything of scale on reddit/voat that represents hate of fat people, and not of the lifestyle or the dumb ideas that the movement comes up with.
  - kevinh 9y ago
    The subreddit was literally named /r/fatpeoplehate.
    - imaginenore 9y ago
      Yes, it was about the things that fat people hate. Not about the hatred of fat people.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        That is definitely not true. Nobody who read posters cackling about "hamplanets" could honestly believe that.

tomjen3 9y ago

Don't be too sure. Glancing at the link, all the test for is the usage of the same words that were used in the banned subreddits - but those are unlikely to be used as they would quickly get the account banned. Instead presumably the accounts would use a more subdued approach, but with little change in intent. The approach also fails to account for users who go to alternative sites.

BlackjackCF 9y ago

It just seems like all of the shittiness that was on Reddit migrated over to Voat. Voat is a fucking cesspool of gross.

dawnerd 9y ago
Better to contain it at least. I'm all for free speech, but those people (and the general immaturity) made me leave reddit for good.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
bduerst 9y ago
Even Voat has had to draw a line in the sand regarding content and began banning communities: https://voat.co/v/announcements/163288 https://voat.co/v/announcements/163288
MBCook 9y ago
It's too bad that they didn't have access to data about other sites like 4chan and Voat to see if they saw an increase correlated to the amount of people who left Reddit.
tajen 9y ago
and Gab.ai and 9Gag.
intended 9y ago
> In a sense, Reddit has made these users (from banned subreddits) someone else’s problem. To be clear, from a macro persepctive, Reddit’s actions likely did not make the internet safer or less hateful. section 6.6 of the paper. I argue that this paper capstones the pathway to concentrate, sequester, fester and finally eradicate hate subs from a single platform. It just moves elsewhere and then begins to adapt. Also - Suppose the study was turned on its moral head, and people applied its lesson to bannign subs focused on "social equality", "improving one self", "making a better world" = what would the implications of that be. In the hands of an attacker, what does this paper say?

mtgx 9y ago

I'm not sure the fire analogy is that apt. I imagine the hatred in those people still exists and if it can't resurface on Reddit, it might resurface elsewhere. Of course a study to back this up would be nice, but this is my theory.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

orblivion 9y ago

> Getting rid of places that fester hatred is like putting out a fire I assumed this was the mental model of those who would suppress "hate speech". Here's the problem: if there's a nugget of important truth hidden somewhere in there, something people won't say in public but which is vital, then you're not putting out a fire, you're putting a lid on a boiling pot. You can try to stop the steam from escaping but eventually it'll blow up in your face.

rgossiaux 9y ago
Yeah, I'm not sure being super racist against black people or telling fat people to kill themselves is really an "important truth" though...
- orblivion 9y ago
  I agree. I see those as symptoms (assuming there's anything there at all). The important question is whether there's something driving them to that state.
  - vanderZwan 9y ago
    Well, whatever the initial cause is, clearly having a platform is one of the bigger drivers, and removing it seems like the appropriate response
  - fatbird 9y ago
    It might be that we miss some key insight into Ebola or virology by trying as hard as possible to contain and eradicate it. Still, we restrict ourselves to studying it in a lab, rather than treating an outbreak as the place to find a possible nugget of truth. It's one of the most frustrating parts of discussions about this topic for me: we're constantly supposed to weigh the value of hypothetical goods and somehow judge our commitment to freedom of expression by how far we're willing to go in defense of possible outcomes we can't even clearly articulate.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > The important question is whether there's something driving them to that state. No. There are millions (probably even tens of millions) of people who share circumstances with these racist/homophobic/misogynistic asshats and who never fall into these behaviours. You cannot excuse any of the *isms with economic anxiety or similar nonsense.

dredmorbius 9y ago

Fire is one metaphor, though I lean far more strongly to epidemiological parallels. Hatred is an operational state, as is illness. Both progress as information is spread through a population. That requires reservoirs or sources, and vectors of transmission, as well as susceptible carriers. By disrupting the reservoirs, limiting the vectors, and innoculating the carriers, you can treat epidemics of both disease and antisocial ideology.

eighthnate 9y ago

> This is an A+ study which seems to confirm that banning subreddits can be an effective way to silence their inhabitants. Was a study needed for that? It's really isn't a good study because it doesn't say anything. > It's nice to get some hard data to counter the theory that if you ban a subreddit consisting of undesirables, they'll simply invade other parts of reddit and continue. In reality, the other parts of reddit aren't nearly so tolerant. But they did invade, that's why all of reddit became censored. > So what's the implication? There are no implications. Censorship works. There are reams and reams of studies that show that. It's why you won't see much tiannamen square stuff on chinese internet, go any lgbt stuff on russian internet or atheist stuff on saudi internet. People are celebrating this study which essentially says "water is wet". Yeah we know.

kerkeslager 9y ago

Have you been to Voat?

intended 9y ago

I think some conclusions are being drawn too soon, from a study which cautions > In a sense, Reddit has made these users (from banned subreddits) someone else’s problem. To be clear, from a macro persepctive, Reddit’s actions likely did not make the internet safer or less hateful. From section 6.6 - > Recent work has shown that some banned subreddit users migrated to other social media sites like Voat, Snapzu, and Empeopled [29]. The banning of r/fatpeoplehate and r/CoonTown led to the rise of alternatives on Voat.co, for example, where the core group of users from Reddit reorganized. For instance, in another ongoing study, we observed that 1,536 r/fatpeoplehate users have exact match usernames on Voat.co. The users of the Voat equivalents of the two banned subreddits continue to engage in racism and fat-shaming [22, 45]. In a sense, Reddit has made these users (from banned subreddits) someone else’s problem. To be clear, from a macro persepctive, Reddit’s actions likely did not make the internet safer or less hateful. One possible interpretation, given the evidence at hand, is that the ban drove the users from these banned subreddits to darker corners of the internet. As I recall - it took time for Coon town and FPH to metastize. That the metastizing process may well be REQUIRED, to get a critical mass which results in a succesful cleansing. Further this study is based on specific keywords, which the researchers took great pains to curate - but human ability to hide improves with practice - the change of lexicon to words that Wont be easy to track with basic lists. FINALLY - People should flip this on its head - should reddit or any site be compromized, and suppose subs which "fight for equality and freedom and goodness for the world" are banned - what would this study imply?