6 ms·

> Because it is not TOPICS that are censored. It is BEHAVIOR. > (This is why people on the left and people on the right both think they are being targeted) A

by blfr 4y ago

> Because it is not TOPICS that are censored. It is BEHAVIOR. > (This is why people on the left and people on the right both think they are being targeted) An enticing idea but simply not the case for any popular existing social network. And it's triply not true on yishan's reddit which both through administrative measures and moderation culture targets any and all communities that do not share the favoured new-left politics.

realgeniushere 4y ago
bnralt 4y ago
Indeed, I've seen several subs put in new rules where certain topics aren't allowed to be discussed at all, because the administrators told them that the sub would get banned if the users went against the beliefs held by the admins (even if the admins had a minority opinion when it came to the country as a whole). Then there is just arbitrary or malicious enforcement of the rules. /r/Star_Trek was told by admins they would be banned if they talked about /r/StarTrek at all, so now that's a topic that's no longer allowed in that sub. But there are tons of subs set up specifically to talk about other subs, where just about all posts are about other subs (such as /r/subredditdrama), and the admins never bother them. I don't think we can have a conversation about moderation when people are pretending that the current situation doesn't exist, and that moderation is only ever done for altruistic reasons. It's like talking about police reform but pretending that no police officer has ever done anything wrong and not one of them could ever be part of a problem.
- thepasswordis 4y ago
  /r/srd and /r/againsthatesubreddits exist with the explicit purpose of brigading other subs, and yet they are not banned.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    SRD has an explicit "no brigading other subs" rule. How is their explicit purpose brigading other subs?
    - thepasswordis 4y ago
      "Hey guys no brigading okay? ;-)" followed by a page which directly links to threads for people to brigade. They don't even bother to use the np.reddit "no participation" domain. Most other subs don't even allow you to link outside the sub, because they've been warned by admins about brigading. Their rules barely even mention brigading: https://www.reddit.com/r/subredditdrama/wiki/rules https://www.reddit.com/r/subredditdrama/wiki/rules, and you have to go to the expanded version of the rules to find even this, which just says not to vote in linked threads. Literally the entire purpose of this sub is to brigade and harass other subs. Their politics align with those of the admins, though, so it's allowed. It is blatant bullying at the tacit encouragement of the people running the site.
      - Zak 4y ago
        > Most other subs don't even allow you to link outside the sub, because they've been warned by admins about brigading. I joined reddit in 2005 and have moderated several subreddits. The admins have never imposed anything resembling that on any subreddit I have moderated. I have a suspicion they impose it when they see a large amount of brigading behavior. Perhaps it's not applied in an entirely fair or even manner, but I suspect it's only applied when there's an actual problem.
      - UncleMeat 4y ago
        IIRC, np was the norm for many years and it just didn't actually change anything. Oodles of people do get banned from SRD for commenting in linked threads. The easiest way to see this is when month+ old threads get linked. Only the admins can see downvoting patterns. Is simply linking to other threads on reddit sufficient for you to consider something promoting brigading?
        bnralt 4y ago
oneneptune 4y ago
Can you elaborate with an example? I'm unfamiliar with reddit and it's content management. I'm unsure if the premise of "AI" moderation is true, how it could moderate beyond a pattern or behavior since it can't reasonably be scanning every post and comment for political affiliation?
Natsu 4y ago
Yeah, the "there's no principled reason to ban spam" is just silly. The recipients don't want to see it whereas people cry censorship when messages they want to see are blocked. It's literally the difference between your feed being filtered by your choices & preferences and someone else imposing theirs upon you.
- archagon 4y ago
  I see many more people crying censorship when messages that they want others to see are blocked.
  - Natsu 4y ago
    You must hang out in a very different place, then. I see much more outcry when 3rd parties come between willing speakers and recipients, with most of the rest being people misrepresenting censorship as moderation because it allows them to justify it. In that vein, this went up on HN the other day: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/moderation-is-different-from-censorship https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/moderation-is-differen...
pj_mukh 4y ago
I mean that's the claim, the counter-claim would require a social network banning topics and not behavior. Note: As a user you can see topics, you can't see behavior. The fact that some users flood other users' DM's is not visible to all users. So how do you know? "I don't trust left-y CEO's", is a fair enough answer, but really that's where the counter-claim seems to end. Now that we have a right-wing CEO, looks like the shoe is on the other foot[1] [1] https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1588174959817658368?s=20&t=F9Udy0mnApSEXKqnNVWWaA https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1588174959817658368?s=20&t=F9...
- luckylion 4y ago
  > As a user you can see topics, you can't see behavior. True, but not really a good argument for the "trust us, this person needed banning, no we will not give any details"-style of moderation that most companies have applied so far. And you can see topics, so you'll generally notice when topic are being banned, not behavior, because they usually don't align perfectly.
shafoshaf 4y ago
I'm not sure we could tell the difference. As Yishan states, the proof of the behavior isn't being made public because of the exposure to creating new issues. Without that, you would never know. As for specific platforms, aka Reddit, how can one be sure that right wingers on that platform aren't in fact more likely to engage in bad behavior that left wingers? It might be because they are being targeted, but it could also be that that group of people on that platform tend to act more aggressively. I am NOT saying that I know if Reddit is fair in its moderation, I just don't know.
gambler 4y ago
He is half-correct, but not in a good way. When people on the left say something that goes against new-left agenda, they get suppressed too. That is not a redeeming quality of the system or an indicator of fairness. It simply shows that the ideology driving moderation is even more narrow-minded and intolerant of dissent than most observers assume at first sight. At the same time, it's trivial to demonstrate that YouTube and Twitter (easy examples) primarily target conservatives with their "moderation". Just look at who primarily uses major alternative platforms.
- archagon 4y ago
  Or consider that perhaps the right in particular tends to harbor and support people who lean more towards disinformation, hate speech, and incitement to violence.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- AhmedF 4y ago
  > it's trivial to demonstrate that YouTube and Twitter (easy examples) primarily target conservatives with their "moderation". Terrible take. Actual data analysis shows that at worst conservatives are moderated equally, and at best, less than non-conservatives. Here's something to chew on: https://forward.com/fast-forward/423238/twitter-white-nationalists-republicans/ https://forward.com/fast-forward/423238/twitter-white-nation...
  - gambler 4y ago
    You didn't link to data, you linked to an opinion from Vice laundered through another outlet. Here is some actual data, which (predictably) shows that conservatives are targeted significantly more for suspensions: https://archive.ph/SDo33 https://archive.ph/SDo33 But that's besides the point, because it's much simpler than that. You don't need elaborate analysis to see that people tired of Twitter "moderation" filled 4 other platforms: Gab, Parler, Minds and Truth Social. Literally all of them are characterized as right-wing by the same left-wing media outlets that claim that Twitter is impartial in moderation. I'm tired of gaslighting around this issue. Just within replies to my above comment I've gotten two contradictory statements. One, that there is no bias in Twitter moderation, because conservatives are actually targeted less. Two, that there is no bias because conservatives are more likely to break rules, so they should be banned more often. We have two diametrically opposite descriptions of reality that nevertheless converge on the same conclusion. This is ideology-driven reasoning at its worst.
jtolmar 4y ago
All the communist subreddits are in constant hot water with the admins. They banned ChapoTrapHouse when it was one of the biggest subreddits. When a bunch of moderators tried to protest against reddit hosting antivax content, the admins took control over those subreddits. So no, you're just factually wrong here.
- throw_m239339 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - archagon 4y ago
    r/politics is “communist”? That’s… just a really dumb take. If there is a far-left presence on Reddit, it is not prominent. r/politics is left-leaning and angry, but, objectively speaking, not really all that extreme. And, for what it’s worth, it seems perfectly reasonable to label those who tried to overthrow our democratic government “traitors”.
    - throw_m239339 4y ago
      > r/politics is “communist”? That’s… just a really dumb take. If there is a far-left presence on Reddit, it is not prominent. r/politics is left-leaning and angry, but, objectively speaking, not really all that extreme. Obviously, none of the affluent idiots from chapo or at hexbear controlling r/politics r/news or r/worldnews are really communists, they are just rich asshats that just pretend to be, my point still stands. They are still spouting marxist non sense, violent speech, and their behavior isn't moderated, as long as they don't target "the wrong people".
    - ineptech 4y ago
      This kind of sentiment always shows up in this kind of thread; I think a lot of people don't really grok that being far enough to one side causes an unbiased forum to appear biased against you. If you hate X enough, Reddit and Twitter are going to seem pro-X, regardless of what X is. (And, separately, almost no one who argues about anything being "communist" is using the same definition of that word as the person they're arguing with, but that's a different problem entirely)
kodt 4y ago
There are plenty of right wing / politically conservative subs.
- Fervicus 4y ago
  Funny that you never see them on the front page.
  - ranger207 4y ago
    IIRC moderators can set their subs to not appear on the front page intentionally. I know that /r/askhistorians did so in order to stem the tide of low effort comments. Given the reddit community's political leanings as a whole, self-removal from the front page is probably the best for everyone involved
AhmedF 4y ago
Lets be clear - twitter favors right-wingers - says their own engineers: https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1588378198168915968 https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1588378198168915968

by blfr 4y ago

realgeniushere 4y ago

bnralt 4y ago

Indeed, I've seen several subs put in new rules where certain topics aren't allowed to be discussed at all, because the administrators told them that the sub would get banned if the users went against the beliefs held by the admins (even if the admins had a minority opinion when it came to the country as a whole). Then there is just arbitrary or malicious enforcement of the rules. /r/Star_Trek was told by admins they would be banned if they talked about /r/StarTrek at all, so now that's a topic that's no longer allowed in that sub. But there are tons of subs set up specifically to talk about other subs, where just about all posts are about other subs (such as /r/subredditdrama), and the admins never bother them. I don't think we can have a conversation about moderation when people are pretending that the current situation doesn't exist, and that moderation is only ever done for altruistic reasons. It's like talking about police reform but pretending that no police officer has ever done anything wrong and not one of them could ever be part of a problem.

thepasswordis 4y ago
/r/srd and /r/againsthatesubreddits exist with the explicit purpose of brigading other subs, and yet they are not banned.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  SRD has an explicit "no brigading other subs" rule. How is their explicit purpose brigading other subs?
  - thepasswordis 4y ago
    "Hey guys no brigading okay? ;-)" followed by a page which directly links to threads for people to brigade. They don't even bother to use the np.reddit "no participation" domain. Most other subs don't even allow you to link outside the sub, because they've been warned by admins about brigading. Their rules barely even mention brigading: https://www.reddit.com/r/subredditdrama/wiki/rules https://www.reddit.com/r/subredditdrama/wiki/rules, and you have to go to the expanded version of the rules to find even this, which just says not to vote in linked threads. Literally the entire purpose of this sub is to brigade and harass other subs. Their politics align with those of the admins, though, so it's allowed. It is blatant bullying at the tacit encouragement of the people running the site.
    - Zak 4y ago
      > Most other subs don't even allow you to link outside the sub, because they've been warned by admins about brigading. I joined reddit in 2005 and have moderated several subreddits. The admins have never imposed anything resembling that on any subreddit I have moderated. I have a suspicion they impose it when they see a large amount of brigading behavior. Perhaps it's not applied in an entirely fair or even manner, but I suspect it's only applied when there's an actual problem.
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      IIRC, np was the norm for many years and it just didn't actually change anything. Oodles of people do get banned from SRD for commenting in linked threads. The easiest way to see this is when month+ old threads get linked. Only the admins can see downvoting patterns. Is simply linking to other threads on reddit sufficient for you to consider something promoting brigading?
      - bnralt 4y ago

oneneptune 4y ago

Can you elaborate with an example? I'm unfamiliar with reddit and it's content management. I'm unsure if the premise of "AI" moderation is true, how it could moderate beyond a pattern or behavior since it can't reasonably be scanning every post and comment for political affiliation?

Natsu 4y ago

Yeah, the "there's no principled reason to ban spam" is just silly. The recipients don't want to see it whereas people cry censorship when messages they want to see are blocked. It's literally the difference between your feed being filtered by your choices & preferences and someone else imposing theirs upon you.

archagon 4y ago
I see many more people crying censorship when messages that they want others to see are blocked.
- Natsu 4y ago
  You must hang out in a very different place, then. I see much more outcry when 3rd parties come between willing speakers and recipients, with most of the rest being people misrepresenting censorship as moderation because it allows them to justify it. In that vein, this went up on HN the other day: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/moderation-is-different-from-censorship https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/moderation-is-differen...

pj_mukh 4y ago

I mean that's the claim, the counter-claim would require a social network banning topics and not behavior. Note: As a user you can see topics, you can't see behavior. The fact that some users flood other users' DM's is not visible to all users. So how do you know? "I don't trust left-y CEO's", is a fair enough answer, but really that's where the counter-claim seems to end. Now that we have a right-wing CEO, looks like the shoe is on the other foot[1] [1] https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1588174959817658368?s=20&t=F9Udy0mnApSEXKqnNVWWaA https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1588174959817658368?s=20&t=F9...

luckylion 4y ago
> As a user you can see topics, you can't see behavior. True, but not really a good argument for the "trust us, this person needed banning, no we will not give any details"-style of moderation that most companies have applied so far. And you can see topics, so you'll generally notice when topic are being banned, not behavior, because they usually don't align perfectly.

shafoshaf 4y ago

I'm not sure we could tell the difference. As Yishan states, the proof of the behavior isn't being made public because of the exposure to creating new issues. Without that, you would never know. As for specific platforms, aka Reddit, how can one be sure that right wingers on that platform aren't in fact more likely to engage in bad behavior that left wingers? It might be because they are being targeted, but it could also be that that group of people on that platform tend to act more aggressively. I am NOT saying that I know if Reddit is fair in its moderation, I just don't know.

gambler 4y ago

He is half-correct, but not in a good way. When people on the left say something that goes against new-left agenda, they get suppressed too. That is not a redeeming quality of the system or an indicator of fairness. It simply shows that the ideology driving moderation is even more narrow-minded and intolerant of dissent than most observers assume at first sight. At the same time, it's trivial to demonstrate that YouTube and Twitter (easy examples) primarily target conservatives with their "moderation". Just look at who primarily uses major alternative platforms.

archagon 4y ago
Or consider that perhaps the right in particular tends to harbor and support people who lean more towards disinformation, hate speech, and incitement to violence.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
AhmedF 4y ago
> it's trivial to demonstrate that YouTube and Twitter (easy examples) primarily target conservatives with their "moderation". Terrible take. Actual data analysis shows that at worst conservatives are moderated equally, and at best, less than non-conservatives. Here's something to chew on: https://forward.com/fast-forward/423238/twitter-white-nationalists-republicans/ https://forward.com/fast-forward/423238/twitter-white-nation...
- gambler 4y ago
  You didn't link to data, you linked to an opinion from Vice laundered through another outlet. Here is some actual data, which (predictably) shows that conservatives are targeted significantly more for suspensions: https://archive.ph/SDo33 https://archive.ph/SDo33 But that's besides the point, because it's much simpler than that. You don't need elaborate analysis to see that people tired of Twitter "moderation" filled 4 other platforms: Gab, Parler, Minds and Truth Social. Literally all of them are characterized as right-wing by the same left-wing media outlets that claim that Twitter is impartial in moderation. I'm tired of gaslighting around this issue. Just within replies to my above comment I've gotten two contradictory statements. One, that there is no bias in Twitter moderation, because conservatives are actually targeted less. Two, that there is no bias because conservatives are more likely to break rules, so they should be banned more often. We have two diametrically opposite descriptions of reality that nevertheless converge on the same conclusion. This is ideology-driven reasoning at its worst.

jtolmar 4y ago

All the communist subreddits are in constant hot water with the admins. They banned ChapoTrapHouse when it was one of the biggest subreddits. When a bunch of moderators tried to protest against reddit hosting antivax content, the admins took control over those subreddits. So no, you're just factually wrong here.

throw_m239339 4y ago
[flagged]
- archagon 4y ago
  r/politics is “communist”? That’s… just a really dumb take. If there is a far-left presence on Reddit, it is not prominent. r/politics is left-leaning and angry, but, objectively speaking, not really all that extreme. And, for what it’s worth, it seems perfectly reasonable to label those who tried to overthrow our democratic government “traitors”.
  - throw_m239339 4y ago
    > r/politics is “communist”? That’s… just a really dumb take. If there is a far-left presence on Reddit, it is not prominent. r/politics is left-leaning and angry, but, objectively speaking, not really all that extreme. Obviously, none of the affluent idiots from chapo or at hexbear controlling r/politics r/news or r/worldnews are really communists, they are just rich asshats that just pretend to be, my point still stands. They are still spouting marxist non sense, violent speech, and their behavior isn't moderated, as long as they don't target "the wrong people".
  - ineptech 4y ago
    This kind of sentiment always shows up in this kind of thread; I think a lot of people don't really grok that being far enough to one side causes an unbiased forum to appear biased against you. If you hate X enough, Reddit and Twitter are going to seem pro-X, regardless of what X is. (And, separately, almost no one who argues about anything being "communist" is using the same definition of that word as the person they're arguing with, but that's a different problem entirely)

kodt 4y ago

There are plenty of right wing / politically conservative subs.

Fervicus 4y ago
Funny that you never see them on the front page.
- ranger207 4y ago
  IIRC moderators can set their subs to not appear on the front page intentionally. I know that /r/askhistorians did so in order to stem the tide of low effort comments. Given the reddit community's political leanings as a whole, self-removal from the front page is probably the best for everyone involved

AhmedF 4y ago

Lets be clear - twitter favors right-wingers - says their own engineers: https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1588378198168915968 https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1588378198168915968