2 ms·
Well, yes that's the obvious (and cynical) assumption. It's definitely true as a real pseudo-economic force on the internet and media generally, but let's not j
by dalbasal 9y ago
Well, yes that's the obvious (and cynical) assumption. It's definitely true as a real pseudo-economic force on the internet and media generally, but let's not just assume reddit are following that "interest" blindly.
If you think reddit doesn't have those values, I guess we disagree. I don't see any way of coming to that conclusion apart from fundamentalism, it's either absolute or it's bullshit.
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoLet's see - Vanity Fair, Wired, GQ - there seems good reason to think that Conde Nast are willing to compromise and go with the click bait, a lot. https://www.wired.com/story/bad-actors-are-using-social-media-exactly-as-designed/ https://www.wired.com/story/bad-actors-are-using-social-medi... .. is the first entry Reddit, is it in the list, nope. I think Conde Nast are prepared to stoop pretty low in the search for dollars before integrity.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- zaksoup 9y agoTo be fair, Conde Nast also owns Ars Technica, which, in my experience, has a fairly exemplary reputation as far as avoiding clickbait and running good articles. That said, it certainly seems to me like if not as an explicit business decision, Conde Nast certainly has no problem with their properties sensationalizing their media for views/clicks/etc
- nradov 9y agoI'm not a Reddit user but there are plenty of stories out there about how the corporate managers have permanently closed some offensive forums. To be clear, I'm not claiming that Reddit management did anything wrong; they're under no obligation to spend money spreading toxic content. But obviously they don't value non-censorship as a corporate value.