4 ms·

They are only moving to other platforms that are harder to track, like Discord or Telegram. Just because they don't appear in the data doesn't mean that they do

They are only moving to other platforms that are harder to track, like Discord or Telegram. Just because they don't appear in the data doesn't mean that they don't exist. Then yes, you sanitize some platforms but the problem as a whole is just less evident but still growing.

rmtgk 7y ago
Well, but the point here is that the reddit staff doesn't have to worry about those users anymore, no? It's not like someone is going to stop being a right-winger just because you ban him from reddit. That's not what they expected to happen. But they want to keep their ad dollars.
DavidHm 7y ago
I would argue that's still a win. Discord and Telegram are more difficult to track because they are less public and visible. The move has therefore managed to reduce the exposure that non-active participants have to toxic behaviour, and the normalization of said behaviour as something acceptable/tolerated.
- kuzehanka 7y ago
  The size and conviction of 'toxic' groups is growing, not diminishing. Marginalising them and pushing them to less-visible communication channels is only harmful from every angle except staving off short-term moral outrage of social justice types. When various less-desirable groups existed on reddit, it was easy to monitor and gauge their size and their beliefs. It was possible to engage with them on some levels. Now they are scattered across various difficult to observe channels and are fully enclosed in an echo chamber that amplifies their beliefs that much more. The early days of large social platforms like Reddit was the only time in the last several hundred years when it was possible to get a reasonable estimate of what segment of the population held what beliefs, including the less popular ones. Being able to get an objective view of that distribution was the first step in qualifying and addressing the underlying issues. Instead we are sweeping those demographics under the rug again, and destroying the ability to study and interact with them.
  - p49k 7y ago
    What evidence has shown that engaging with them is more effective? It seems to be like it’s nearly impossible to convince someone that their worldview is wrong; however people do feel the need and desire to be part of communities and knowing they might be excluded for having hateful views might be more of a motivator for them to rethink those views on their own terms, which is possibly a more effective method of changing someone’s views.
    - kuzehanka 7y ago
      > What evidence has shown that engaging with them is more effective? We have a lot of evidence that marginalising sufficiently large groups leads to tremendous backlash when they reach critical mass, e.g. almost every revolution in history. I think we can agree that doing exactly that which failed every time before is not a productive avenue. > having hateful views Let's not conflate hateful views with 'toxic' views. The term toxic refers to any unpopular view. In addition to hate speech, this includes various sexual preferences, political views, anti-science movements, mens rights groups, etc.
      - DFHippie 7y ago
        > Let's not conflate hateful views with 'toxic' views. Is this a terminological distinction you just made up? In the usage I'm familiar neither "hateful" nor "toxic" is a term of art.
        kuzehanka 7y ago
        As per TFA, reddit banned a list of 'toxic' demographics. A quick scan over those demographics makes it quite apparent that about half of them are not related to hate speech but rather some of the other categories I listed above. Not sure how the distinction between 'hateful' and 'toxic' could possibly be contentious.
sagichmal 7y ago
> They are only moving to other platforms that are harder to track, like Discord or Telegram. Harder to track also means harder to find. Sounds great to me. Let's make sure anyone who worms their way into those dark places knows without doubt that they're detestable, that civil society stands united against them. Maybe with some time, the boredom of the next generation can be directed to less evil ends.
antihero 7y ago
They are always going to exist, this isn't some charity case to help them heal, honestly people are just happy the scum has fucked off more than it had before.
eeeeeeeeeeeee 7y ago
Nobody is actually saying we are going to eradicate these ideas completely. Seems like a lot of comments here don’t want to do anything because it won’t completely eliminate the idea. I don’t expect these ideas will ever be eradicated but my issue has always been that these platforms, especially Twitter and Reddit and especially YouTube, present these “underground” ideas alongside “mainstream” ideas and amplify it and suggest it to people that otherwise would have never stumbled upon it. And they present to the user as content of equal quality to ideas that are actually based in science and real research, not manipulation and cherry picked data. The internet has plenty of space for everyone, but we don’t need to raise bad ideas to the same table as good ones. Just as we shouldn’t be covering “intelligent design” alongside evolution to our kids as an equal alternative.
- shrimp_emoji 7y ago
  >Seems like a lot of comments here don’t want to do anything because it won’t completely eliminate the idea. The nirvana fallacy seems like a very popular defense for gatekeeping changes to something. >we don’t need to raise bad ideas to the same table as good ones. Just as we shouldn’t be covering “intelligent design” alongside evolution to our kids as an equal alternative. If you don't find it surprising that people can be influenced by their social environment (spoiler: you shouldn't), this seems like an unavoidable conclusion. The "marketplace of ideas" is an idea that puts a little too much faith in rationality. It seems as dysfunctional as other markets in that a lot of people make irrational decisions, which have consequences, without caring about (or noticing) the externalities.

rmtgk 7y ago

Well, but the point here is that the reddit staff doesn't have to worry about those users anymore, no? It's not like someone is going to stop being a right-winger just because you ban him from reddit. That's not what they expected to happen. But they want to keep their ad dollars.

DavidHm 7y ago

I would argue that's still a win. Discord and Telegram are more difficult to track because they are less public and visible. The move has therefore managed to reduce the exposure that non-active participants have to toxic behaviour, and the normalization of said behaviour as something acceptable/tolerated.

kuzehanka 7y ago
The size and conviction of 'toxic' groups is growing, not diminishing. Marginalising them and pushing them to less-visible communication channels is only harmful from every angle except staving off short-term moral outrage of social justice types. When various less-desirable groups existed on reddit, it was easy to monitor and gauge their size and their beliefs. It was possible to engage with them on some levels. Now they are scattered across various difficult to observe channels and are fully enclosed in an echo chamber that amplifies their beliefs that much more. The early days of large social platforms like Reddit was the only time in the last several hundred years when it was possible to get a reasonable estimate of what segment of the population held what beliefs, including the less popular ones. Being able to get an objective view of that distribution was the first step in qualifying and addressing the underlying issues. Instead we are sweeping those demographics under the rug again, and destroying the ability to study and interact with them.
- p49k 7y ago
  What evidence has shown that engaging with them is more effective? It seems to be like it’s nearly impossible to convince someone that their worldview is wrong; however people do feel the need and desire to be part of communities and knowing they might be excluded for having hateful views might be more of a motivator for them to rethink those views on their own terms, which is possibly a more effective method of changing someone’s views.
  - kuzehanka 7y ago
    > What evidence has shown that engaging with them is more effective? We have a lot of evidence that marginalising sufficiently large groups leads to tremendous backlash when they reach critical mass, e.g. almost every revolution in history. I think we can agree that doing exactly that which failed every time before is not a productive avenue. > having hateful views Let's not conflate hateful views with 'toxic' views. The term toxic refers to any unpopular view. In addition to hate speech, this includes various sexual preferences, political views, anti-science movements, mens rights groups, etc.
    - DFHippie 7y ago
      > Let's not conflate hateful views with 'toxic' views. Is this a terminological distinction you just made up? In the usage I'm familiar neither "hateful" nor "toxic" is a term of art.
      - kuzehanka 7y ago
        As per TFA, reddit banned a list of 'toxic' demographics. A quick scan over those demographics makes it quite apparent that about half of them are not related to hate speech but rather some of the other categories I listed above. Not sure how the distinction between 'hateful' and 'toxic' could possibly be contentious.

sagichmal 7y ago

> They are only moving to other platforms that are harder to track, like Discord or Telegram. Harder to track also means harder to find. Sounds great to me. Let's make sure anyone who worms their way into those dark places knows without doubt that they're detestable, that civil society stands united against them. Maybe with some time, the boredom of the next generation can be directed to less evil ends.

antihero 7y ago

They are always going to exist, this isn't some charity case to help them heal, honestly people are just happy the scum has fucked off more than it had before.

eeeeeeeeeeeee 7y ago

Nobody is actually saying we are going to eradicate these ideas completely. Seems like a lot of comments here don’t want to do anything because it won’t completely eliminate the idea. I don’t expect these ideas will ever be eradicated but my issue has always been that these platforms, especially Twitter and Reddit and especially YouTube, present these “underground” ideas alongside “mainstream” ideas and amplify it and suggest it to people that otherwise would have never stumbled upon it. And they present to the user as content of equal quality to ideas that are actually based in science and real research, not manipulation and cherry picked data. The internet has plenty of space for everyone, but we don’t need to raise bad ideas to the same table as good ones. Just as we shouldn’t be covering “intelligent design” alongside evolution to our kids as an equal alternative.

shrimp_emoji 7y ago
>Seems like a lot of comments here don’t want to do anything because it won’t completely eliminate the idea. The nirvana fallacy seems like a very popular defense for gatekeeping changes to something. >we don’t need to raise bad ideas to the same table as good ones. Just as we shouldn’t be covering “intelligent design” alongside evolution to our kids as an equal alternative. If you don't find it surprising that people can be influenced by their social environment (spoiler: you shouldn't), this seems like an unavoidable conclusion. The "marketplace of ideas" is an idea that puts a little too much faith in rationality. It seems as dysfunctional as other markets in that a lot of people make irrational decisions, which have consequences, without caring about (or noticing) the externalities.