6 ms·

If I were either of them, I'd be frantically doing whatever I could to disassociate myself from Reddit. Five years from now Reddit will have slid off the Alexa

If I were either of them, I'd be frantically doing whatever I could to disassociate myself from Reddit. Five years from now Reddit will have slid off the Alexa rankings. It will be replaced by two upstarts: one for moderate users, and one for "edge lords."

threeseed 8y ago
It's already happened with Voat. All of the alt-right and other controversial users moved there. And with the recent banning of dozens of subreddits like greatawakening the trend will only continue. Reddit still has the rampant porn and misoginism courtesy of incel, kia, mensrights type subs which will continue to dissuade women from being interested in the site but it's definitely becoming more mainstream with every coming day.
- charlesism 8y ago
  Voat is too extreme to ever challenge Reddit. I think it's a given that we'll see a new wave of social media companies that put "moderation/censorship" first. Many users won't like that. If anything, what remains of Reddit will be better positioned to become the new Voat, and cater to people who don't want strict moderation. But since Reddit has been taking baby steps away from that for the past couple years, it would be an awkward reversal.
  - ggm 8y ago
    I've been to more than a few meetings about the future of discourse online, and where I used to believe anonymity was ascendant, I now think identified use is on the up. It makes for better dialogue. I fully understand some people need anonymity and pseudonimity. But the general case, very quickly goes to a descent to the bottom.
    - skummetmaelk 8y ago
      Spending some time on Facebook makes it abundantly clear that identified use does not prevent people from acting like horribly.
      - ggm 8y ago
        Curation helps. George Megalogenis (newspaper man) used to say "my blog, my rules" and fearlessly cut stuff he didn't think had any merit. But I take your point. It is no guarantee of success, just to require people to be identified.
        justtopost 8y ago
        To further that point, many open discussions of sensitive issues are not going to to be 'figured out' publicly, under a real name, where my family reads. Anonyminity is powerful for open discussions without taboo that will have repurcussions elsewhere. Facebook et al are possibly the worst forum for hard discussion.
    - pathseeker 8y ago
      > I now think identified use is on the up. It makes for better dialogue. I haven't seen this at all. It oppresses ideas from surfacing that are currently seen as unpopular by whatever vitriolic group, which leads to a large misrepresentation in the public discourse because the only ones supporting it usually have "nothing to lose". Identified use is great if you don't want any controversial discourse and just need a quick way to verify identity (reduce spam, coordinate local events, etc). Otherwise it's just a recipe for reflecting popular opinion given the online community's proclivity for reaching for pitchforks.
    - Bartweiss 8y ago
      > I fully understand some people need anonymity and pseudonimity. But the general case I think we often underestimate the need to have these spaces active and available just to leave room for such people. If /b/ is where people post bizarre anonymous trash, and Facebook is where people have serious conversations about serious issues, what do the people who need anonymity do? Go on Facebook and tell their families "hey, you should go have some of this discussion in those weird anonymous forums you've heard are full of evil people, no reason, nothing to do with me having a trait you'd hate me for"? I don't mean to be snarky, this is a genuinely hard problem. But "people who need anonymity" are by definition a group you can't wait to accommodate when they speak up and ask for it. Facebook's real name policies regularly cause problems for everyone from American trans people to Bangladeshi atheists, and go far beyond that in silencing discussion on topics where a totally conventional opinion might offend an employer or family member. (Or perhaps Customs and Border Patrol, which can't prove how many Reddit accounts someone has but apparently challenges claims of not having a Facebook profile.) I don't think anonymity has to be a descent to the bottom. Comparing different subreddits, or HN to 4chan, or any other pair of anonymous sites, demonstrates that. I do think anonymity and the need for moderation tend to trade against one another; anonymous fora without oversight quickly become toxic, or are simply eaten by spammers. But I'm very concerned that real name policies look good because anonymity causes highly visible bad behavior, while identity silently pushes vulnerable people out of the discussion.
mark_l_watson 8y ago
Wow, sorry but I strongly disagree! Reddit has good value as a customizable and personal web site. Over time I adjust the subreddits on my home page as my tech interests change and I enjoy seeing the community top ranked pictures every morning. I have met and talked with Alexis and this article provided interesting background on how he and Steve got back into running the company. He explained to me why he and Steve dropped the Lisp version of Reddit. BTW, I gave you +1 Your honest opinion does not deserve to get downvoted.
- charlesism 8y ago
  There's plenty of positives to Reddit. The trouble is that the prevailing philosophy behind Reddit (and FB, Youtube, etc) doesn't accomplish what everyone thought it would. We have been operating under the assumption that "filter bubbles are bad" and that private businesses should uphold "free speech" the way the judicial system does in the public realm. In practice, it looks as though online conversations aren't constructive unless the participants share a certain amount of common ground (eg: "first principles" like whether the strong should dominate the weak, or whether all "MSM" are part of a conspiracy and untrustworthy). I think in the future social media startups will have a "point of view" and not try to cater to everyone.
  - pathseeker 8y ago
    >We have been operating under the assumption that "filter bubbles are bad" The entire premise of Reddit is that filter bubbles are the solution. You get to create bubbles for your own views called 'subreddits' where you can moderate out any wrong-think until the remaining subscribers reinforce the correct-think with their upvote/downvote mechanisms. A system that operated under the assumption that "filter bubbles are bad" would not allow its members to upvote/downvote each others' content so simply.
    - charlesism 8y ago
      I worded that poorly. I mean filter bubbles are the right idea, but don't go far enough. A site should should hold specific enough values that its users can debate each other in good faith, and so that admins can stamp out (what they consider to be) toxic behavior without shocking half their users.
dageshi 8y ago
Not even a chance. They'll just slowly ban/purge all the crap. So long as the leave the vast majority of the porn alone, which they probably will because frankly porn is "moderate" nowadays they'll be fine.
- charlesism 8y ago
  You might be right. On the other hand, Reddit is already long in the tooth. It is easier for a new company to start fresh, than Reddit to drastically change itself (enough to banish its uglier subreddits and users). Nobody will complain that a new network is "selling out" etc. A new company won't have turmoil as its employees (well, the most libertarian ones) quit or push back against new SOP.
TheRealDunkirk 8y ago
I would argue the moderates already have 9Gag, and the edgelords already have 4Chan.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  Alternatively, the moderates have Reddit, and the fringe has Voat. (Perhaps not 'edgelords', since there's not much irony to that one.) And, unremarkably, Voat is a ghost town. The reason sites attract a lunatic fringe is in large part the same reason they attract anyone else; they're active and enjoyable to use. Even 4chan offsets /b/ and /r9k/ with a host of less famous boards where people have basically normal conversations you could see anywhere online. I think you're dead on - userbases don't schism into more and less intense factions, they form around frameworks that match their interests. 9gag and Imgur are "here's some rapidly entertaining content", Tumblr is blogs with mutual audiences, Reddit offers a mix of hyper-curated content, 4chan is a place where things are just happening on a topic and you can jump right in if you can stand the pressure.
ralusek 8y ago
Reddit is already a site for moderate users and edgelords. Subscribe to The_Donald and ImGoingToHellForThis for edgelorderie, avoid them for a moderate experience. I know somebody that is in the explicit business (as in this is their profession) of getting tech companies to aggressively add stronger moderation to their platforms. It's an objective with some admirable aims, but what I will never understand is how the reddit solution isn't already considered to be the perfect one. I literally read 0 The_Donald content, ever, and yet I see its existence referenced pretty frequently as "proof" of why reddit is actually run by Trump sympathizers. I am not exposed to it at all, I don't see what the issue is. Working exactly as intended. The moderation culture varies so incredibly between subreddits, you really can find things that are perfectly suited for your tolerances. If you can't, then you can make a subreddit for the same type of content, where the distinguishing factor is that the culture of moderation is different from the one that didn't suit your taste.
- meowface 8y ago
  It's hysteria from people who are appalled reddit admins won't ban communities they find disagreeable, despite the fact all of reddit's current and former executives have been quite left-leaning on social issues and the fact they've heavily ramped up subreddit permabans in the past year. I don't like Trump or his subreddit either, but I also literally never see it, and don't need a quasi-common community carrier like reddit to evict everything controversial. The idea that reddit is harboring fascists or that the admins or executives are fascist-sympathizers or even Trump supporters is pretty ridiculous.
  - charlesism 8y ago
    I don't feel great about spending time on a website that hosts content like this: https://np.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTears/ https://np.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTears/ I guess I'm old, but that doesn't seem absurdly prudish to me. Reddit is full of stuff like that ( see: https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstHateSubreddits/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstHateSubreddits/ ). If it were my company, I would have some system to vet subreddits before they went live. It would kill me to host a website full of toxic garbage.
Cthulhu_ 8y ago
Reddit has started pivoting to cater to the moderate users a few years ago, and is still working on shutting down the more extreme segments (iirc there was a ban wave not long ago). The "edgelords" have moved to Voat. In time that one will probably die out from a lack of engagement, or be shut down by legal procedures for hosting illegal content.
- murph-almighty 8y ago
  >iirc there was a ban wave not long ago A bunch of subs related to QAnon were just banned, the most significant one being r/thegreatawakening. A couple of past sweeping bans include: - r/jailbait and some other subs with questionable sexualized content - r/fatpeoplehate, which I think also came with a bunch of bans on other hate subreddits
fjsolwmv 8y ago
Sadly, moderates don't generate the engagement needed to make running a service sustainable.

threeseed 8y ago

It's already happened with Voat. All of the alt-right and other controversial users moved there. And with the recent banning of dozens of subreddits like greatawakening the trend will only continue. Reddit still has the rampant porn and misoginism courtesy of incel, kia, mensrights type subs which will continue to dissuade women from being interested in the site but it's definitely becoming more mainstream with every coming day.

charlesism 8y ago
Voat is too extreme to ever challenge Reddit. I think it's a given that we'll see a new wave of social media companies that put "moderation/censorship" first. Many users won't like that. If anything, what remains of Reddit will be better positioned to become the new Voat, and cater to people who don't want strict moderation. But since Reddit has been taking baby steps away from that for the past couple years, it would be an awkward reversal.
- ggm 8y ago
  I've been to more than a few meetings about the future of discourse online, and where I used to believe anonymity was ascendant, I now think identified use is on the up. It makes for better dialogue. I fully understand some people need anonymity and pseudonimity. But the general case, very quickly goes to a descent to the bottom.
  - skummetmaelk 8y ago
    Spending some time on Facebook makes it abundantly clear that identified use does not prevent people from acting like horribly.
    - ggm 8y ago
      Curation helps. George Megalogenis (newspaper man) used to say "my blog, my rules" and fearlessly cut stuff he didn't think had any merit. But I take your point. It is no guarantee of success, just to require people to be identified.
      - justtopost 8y ago
        To further that point, many open discussions of sensitive issues are not going to to be 'figured out' publicly, under a real name, where my family reads. Anonyminity is powerful for open discussions without taboo that will have repurcussions elsewhere. Facebook et al are possibly the worst forum for hard discussion.
  - pathseeker 8y ago
    > I now think identified use is on the up. It makes for better dialogue. I haven't seen this at all. It oppresses ideas from surfacing that are currently seen as unpopular by whatever vitriolic group, which leads to a large misrepresentation in the public discourse because the only ones supporting it usually have "nothing to lose". Identified use is great if you don't want any controversial discourse and just need a quick way to verify identity (reduce spam, coordinate local events, etc). Otherwise it's just a recipe for reflecting popular opinion given the online community's proclivity for reaching for pitchforks.
  - Bartweiss 8y ago
    > I fully understand some people need anonymity and pseudonimity. But the general case I think we often underestimate the need to have these spaces active and available just to leave room for such people. If /b/ is where people post bizarre anonymous trash, and Facebook is where people have serious conversations about serious issues, what do the people who need anonymity do? Go on Facebook and tell their families "hey, you should go have some of this discussion in those weird anonymous forums you've heard are full of evil people, no reason, nothing to do with me having a trait you'd hate me for"? I don't mean to be snarky, this is a genuinely hard problem. But "people who need anonymity" are by definition a group you can't wait to accommodate when they speak up and ask for it. Facebook's real name policies regularly cause problems for everyone from American trans people to Bangladeshi atheists, and go far beyond that in silencing discussion on topics where a totally conventional opinion might offend an employer or family member. (Or perhaps Customs and Border Patrol, which can't prove how many Reddit accounts someone has but apparently challenges claims of not having a Facebook profile.) I don't think anonymity has to be a descent to the bottom. Comparing different subreddits, or HN to 4chan, or any other pair of anonymous sites, demonstrates that. I do think anonymity and the need for moderation tend to trade against one another; anonymous fora without oversight quickly become toxic, or are simply eaten by spammers. But I'm very concerned that real name policies look good because anonymity causes highly visible bad behavior, while identity silently pushes vulnerable people out of the discussion.

mark_l_watson 8y ago

Wow, sorry but I strongly disagree! Reddit has good value as a customizable and personal web site. Over time I adjust the subreddits on my home page as my tech interests change and I enjoy seeing the community top ranked pictures every morning. I have met and talked with Alexis and this article provided interesting background on how he and Steve got back into running the company. He explained to me why he and Steve dropped the Lisp version of Reddit. BTW, I gave you +1 Your honest opinion does not deserve to get downvoted.

charlesism 8y ago
There's plenty of positives to Reddit. The trouble is that the prevailing philosophy behind Reddit (and FB, Youtube, etc) doesn't accomplish what everyone thought it would. We have been operating under the assumption that "filter bubbles are bad" and that private businesses should uphold "free speech" the way the judicial system does in the public realm. In practice, it looks as though online conversations aren't constructive unless the participants share a certain amount of common ground (eg: "first principles" like whether the strong should dominate the weak, or whether all "MSM" are part of a conspiracy and untrustworthy). I think in the future social media startups will have a "point of view" and not try to cater to everyone.
- pathseeker 8y ago
  >We have been operating under the assumption that "filter bubbles are bad" The entire premise of Reddit is that filter bubbles are the solution. You get to create bubbles for your own views called 'subreddits' where you can moderate out any wrong-think until the remaining subscribers reinforce the correct-think with their upvote/downvote mechanisms. A system that operated under the assumption that "filter bubbles are bad" would not allow its members to upvote/downvote each others' content so simply.
  - charlesism 8y ago
    I worded that poorly. I mean filter bubbles are the right idea, but don't go far enough. A site should should hold specific enough values that its users can debate each other in good faith, and so that admins can stamp out (what they consider to be) toxic behavior without shocking half their users.

dageshi 8y ago

Not even a chance. They'll just slowly ban/purge all the crap. So long as the leave the vast majority of the porn alone, which they probably will because frankly porn is "moderate" nowadays they'll be fine.

charlesism 8y ago
You might be right. On the other hand, Reddit is already long in the tooth. It is easier for a new company to start fresh, than Reddit to drastically change itself (enough to banish its uglier subreddits and users). Nobody will complain that a new network is "selling out" etc. A new company won't have turmoil as its employees (well, the most libertarian ones) quit or push back against new SOP.

TheRealDunkirk 8y ago

I would argue the moderates already have 9Gag, and the edgelords already have 4Chan.

Bartweiss 8y ago
Alternatively, the moderates have Reddit, and the fringe has Voat. (Perhaps not 'edgelords', since there's not much irony to that one.) And, unremarkably, Voat is a ghost town. The reason sites attract a lunatic fringe is in large part the same reason they attract anyone else; they're active and enjoyable to use. Even 4chan offsets /b/ and /r9k/ with a host of less famous boards where people have basically normal conversations you could see anywhere online. I think you're dead on - userbases don't schism into more and less intense factions, they form around frameworks that match their interests. 9gag and Imgur are "here's some rapidly entertaining content", Tumblr is blogs with mutual audiences, Reddit offers a mix of hyper-curated content, 4chan is a place where things are just happening on a topic and you can jump right in if you can stand the pressure.

ralusek 8y ago

Reddit is already a site for moderate users and edgelords. Subscribe to The_Donald and ImGoingToHellForThis for edgelorderie, avoid them for a moderate experience. I know somebody that is in the explicit business (as in this is their profession) of getting tech companies to aggressively add stronger moderation to their platforms. It's an objective with some admirable aims, but what I will never understand is how the reddit solution isn't already considered to be the perfect one. I literally read 0 The_Donald content, ever, and yet I see its existence referenced pretty frequently as "proof" of why reddit is actually run by Trump sympathizers. I am not exposed to it at all, I don't see what the issue is. Working exactly as intended. The moderation culture varies so incredibly between subreddits, you really can find things that are perfectly suited for your tolerances. If you can't, then you can make a subreddit for the same type of content, where the distinguishing factor is that the culture of moderation is different from the one that didn't suit your taste.

meowface 8y ago
It's hysteria from people who are appalled reddit admins won't ban communities they find disagreeable, despite the fact all of reddit's current and former executives have been quite left-leaning on social issues and the fact they've heavily ramped up subreddit permabans in the past year. I don't like Trump or his subreddit either, but I also literally never see it, and don't need a quasi-common community carrier like reddit to evict everything controversial. The idea that reddit is harboring fascists or that the admins or executives are fascist-sympathizers or even Trump supporters is pretty ridiculous.
- charlesism 8y ago
  I don't feel great about spending time on a website that hosts content like this: https://np.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTears/ https://np.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTears/ I guess I'm old, but that doesn't seem absurdly prudish to me. Reddit is full of stuff like that ( see: https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstHateSubreddits/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstHateSubreddits/ ). If it were my company, I would have some system to vet subreddits before they went live. It would kill me to host a website full of toxic garbage.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

Reddit has started pivoting to cater to the moderate users a few years ago, and is still working on shutting down the more extreme segments (iirc there was a ban wave not long ago). The "edgelords" have moved to Voat. In time that one will probably die out from a lack of engagement, or be shut down by legal procedures for hosting illegal content.

murph-almighty 8y ago
>iirc there was a ban wave not long ago A bunch of subs related to QAnon were just banned, the most significant one being r/thegreatawakening. A couple of past sweeping bans include: - r/jailbait and some other subs with questionable sexualized content - r/fatpeoplehate, which I think also came with a bunch of bans on other hate subreddits

fjsolwmv 8y ago

Sadly, moderates don't generate the engagement needed to make running a service sustainable.