3 ms·

There was a browser extension a couple years ago that marked every user that had commented on controversial subreddits, so that people no longer had to read com

by easton 5y ago

There was a browser extension a couple years ago that marked every user that had commented on controversial subreddits, so that people no longer had to read comments and instead could just ignore/report them[0]. Attaching such a list to something that can use the blocking API is the superlaser on the propaganda death star. Nobody can disagree with you anymore. I believe it is time to use such a list to block everyone on my account that has ever posted in r/emacs, because they cannot see the error of their ways by not choosing ed(1). 0: In many cases I saw that people would also comment under said user stating something to the effect of "This person has commented on r/emacs, they are stupid, it doesn't matter that they're talking about their thoughts on the Disney+ catalog." Which had the secondary effect of people jumping to conclusions about OP without even opting in to download the extension.

woodruffw 5y ago
Your examples (emacs and ed) are intentionally silly, but as I recall the actual targets of those extensions were significantly less lighthearted: many were explicitly racist or reactionary communities with histories of brigading/raiding other subreddits. Put another way: we shouldn't confuse a civics problem with a platform problem. These extensions (again, as I remember them), were primarily created to eliminate a platform problem that Reddit themselves refused to address. Edit: my personal anecdote with this is NYC's subreddit: accounts with histories that indicate no connection to NYC love to comment on every crime-blotter article with the same tired comments about the city. It's incredibly convenient and improves the quality of the discussion to be able to filter them.
- easton 5y ago
  Yes, you're correct, they were mostly racist or far-right subreddits. But that didn't ever make much sense to me, because even if the person was evil elsewhere, a comment that didn't have that sort of content shouldn't be moderated IMO. Brigading should be detectable regardless of what subreddits a user is a part of, given it usually coincides with bizarre usage patterns (downvoting everything in new as soon as it appears or something). I get moderation is hard, but this makes it too easy. What if someone was evil but then saw the error of their ways? Should they be forced to make a new account? Or what if they were trying to start debates (as unlikely as that is) in said evil subreddit?
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > I get moderation is hard, but this makes it too easy. What if someone was evil but then saw the error of their ways? Should they be forced to make a new account? Or what if they were trying to start debates (as unlikely as that is) in said evil subreddit? This is a great point, and it's a problem that's created by these extensions. I'd argue that it's a lesser problem than the original one, and so it's a pill I'm willing to swallow (and subsequently tackle). In general, I think that anonymized reputation and vouching systems are the way forwards for online communities. Vouching solves the "blacklisting" problem: if we incentivize high-reputation people to vouch for good-faith accounts, then people who fall into the categories you've mentioned can be correctly exempted from the filter. But that's awfully hard to do.

by easton 5y ago

woodruffw 5y ago

Your examples (emacs and ed) are intentionally silly, but as I recall the actual targets of those extensions were significantly less lighthearted: many were explicitly racist or reactionary communities with histories of brigading/raiding other subreddits. Put another way: we shouldn't confuse a civics problem with a platform problem. These extensions (again, as I remember them), were primarily created to eliminate a platform problem that Reddit themselves refused to address. Edit: my personal anecdote with this is NYC's subreddit: accounts with histories that indicate no connection to NYC love to comment on every crime-blotter article with the same tired comments about the city. It's incredibly convenient and improves the quality of the discussion to be able to filter them.

easton 5y ago
Yes, you're correct, they were mostly racist or far-right subreddits. But that didn't ever make much sense to me, because even if the person was evil elsewhere, a comment that didn't have that sort of content shouldn't be moderated IMO. Brigading should be detectable regardless of what subreddits a user is a part of, given it usually coincides with bizarre usage patterns (downvoting everything in new as soon as it appears or something). I get moderation is hard, but this makes it too easy. What if someone was evil but then saw the error of their ways? Should they be forced to make a new account? Or what if they were trying to start debates (as unlikely as that is) in said evil subreddit?
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > I get moderation is hard, but this makes it too easy. What if someone was evil but then saw the error of their ways? Should they be forced to make a new account? Or what if they were trying to start debates (as unlikely as that is) in said evil subreddit? This is a great point, and it's a problem that's created by these extensions. I'd argue that it's a lesser problem than the original one, and so it's a pill I'm willing to swallow (and subsequently tackle). In general, I think that anonymized reputation and vouching systems are the way forwards for online communities. Vouching solves the "blacklisting" problem: if we incentivize high-reputation people to vouch for good-faith accounts, then people who fall into the categories you've mentioned can be correctly exempted from the filter. But that's awfully hard to do.