13 ms·

I hate Reddit, Reddit Admins, Reddit Mods, etc more than most people. Especially how they love to gaslight you and subtly screw you over/sabotage you, as we sa

I hate Reddit, Reddit Admins, Reddit Mods, etc more than most people. Especially how they love to gaslight you and subtly screw you over/sabotage you, as we saw with their attacks on the_donald. BUT if you take the edits in context, there was nothing wrong with them. Dozens of people were talking shit, and he responded by very lightly and very obviously trolling them. There were still a lot of old school internet users/4chan types running the show back then, so they should have been able to deal with a tiny bit of counter-trolling without losing their minds.

rvba 3y ago
[flagged]
kstrauser 3y ago
It would be impossible for me to disagree more. Editing someone's comments to put your own words in their mouth is despicable. Basically, he impersonated those users and put them on record as saying something they'd never said. It's like the text version of a deep fake recording.
- qup 3y ago
  I don't disagree with this take, I just disagree with your implied evaluation of how important that is. Who cares if he put some usernames on record as saying something they never said? I know that you do, and you have your reasons, but...well, I don't. I think people are taking reddit commenting way too seriously if heads need to roll over a comment edit.
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    I almost can't believe you're serious here, but I'll reply sincerely. Suppose dang edited your post to say "I like to get drunk at work", and there it is for the world to see. You never said that, but anyone looking at Hacker News would see: "qup 10 minutes ago: I like to get drunk at work." No, that's absolutely not OK! Now, consider that spez could just as easily edit some old Reddit comments someone wrote years ago to say something horrendous. Do you often go back to verify that all your old comments are unchanged? I certainly don't. I have no way of knowing exactly which comments spez edited, or how significantly he changed them. And honestly, the not knowing is simply inexcusable. All we know is that he has tampered with the production database, not how often or how much.
    - koolba 3y ago
      > All we know is that he has tampered with the production database, not how often or how much. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
      - Tuckerism 3y ago
        A phrase that eerily yet accurately sums up (or some would believe to sum up) lots of public discourse these days.
      - firecall 3y ago
        Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a Latin maxim meaning "false in one thing, false in everything". At common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in_uno,_falsus_in_omnibus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in_uno,_falsus_in_omnib...
    - IanCal 3y ago
      I think there are two distinct things getting mixed up. Should he have been able to? No, that's a concerning setup for the reasons you say. How bad is what he actually did, from what we actually know? For about an hour, comments that said "fuck spez" after he banned the pizzagate sub were changed to "fuck $the_donald_mod_name". I just don't find that a big deal. It's not like editing your comment to say you drink at work.
      - kstrauser 3y ago
        Again, all we know is that he has lied about what users have said in comments. We just don't know to what degree. For me, not knowing that is completely unacceptable. If he only made those changes and solemnly vowed never to do it again, fine, shouldn't have done it but whatever. But who besides him can say for sure?
        IanCal 3y ago
        > Again, all we know is that he has lied about what users have said in comments You mean changing fuck spez to fuck $mod? > We just don't know to what degree Well I'm not sure what auditing they have, and I know there's public databases of all Reddit comments. It's been a while and I'm not aware of other claims. My point was more that you two were arguing at crossroads. You seemed more concerned about what could have happened, and they were talking about what has evidence.
  - d4mi3n 3y ago
    This is a short-sighted argument. A list of who cares: * Any media reporting on what’s happening within Reddit. Remember when WSB was all over the news cycles? Picture that but with some malicious mod/admin setting somebody up to take the fall for equities fraud. * Any person or entity with legal or fincial muscle looking to protect their reputation or product. You don’t want Wizards of the Coast sending the Pinkertons to your door because they think you’re selling stolen goods. * Anyone who values their own reputation in the internet. Imagine being an aspiring politician and having somebody insert racial slurs into your historical posts. The issue isn’t somebody being petty, it’s that there is potential for systemic abuse of power and trust.
  - duncan-donuts 3y ago
    Reddit activity has been used in court. Someone falsifying data is dangerous.
    - qup 3y ago
      I still can't agree. I would counter that using reddit activity in court is dangerous.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
    Dude have you see some of the shit that happens to people over stuff they wrote on reddit n years ago? This isn't the old days when everything on the internet was in good fun. For a lot of people these days, internet unironically srs bsns. And a lot of those people think it's okay to harass folks over their passing thoughts on the internet.
    - kstrauser 3y ago
      Imagine having to testify in court that you didn't actually say the things that the other attorney found in your social media posts, knowing that you really didn't say them but also knowing that no one's going to believe you. "Oh, sure you were hacked. _eye roll_"
dotnet00 3y ago
I think that while the trolling wasn't egregious, the issue was that words were being put in their mouths, which undermines trust. It's a whole other level of manipulation compared to even just impersonating someone.
voldacar 3y ago
>as we saw with their attacks on the_donald what attacks are you specifically referring to here, other than kicking them off the site?
- anononaut 3y ago
  Their manipulation of votes and what was allowed to be on /all is pretty well documented. After a certain point, the_donald and several other right-of-center subs were disallowed entirely to appear on the meta lists.
  - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
    Honestly? Good. So many of the right wing subs were absolute breeding grounds for content violations regarding hate speech, and the sub mods turned a blind eye. It was plainly obvious they were blatantly bad actors on the site long before they got quarantined and banned.
    - rightbyte 3y ago
      The original sub was nothing special rule wise in my opinion. Did you ever visit their spinoff own site? It was psychotic in comparison. Kicking them off Reddit was a mistake for society at large.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      I mean yes that's my opinion, but it's important to look at possible neutral interpretations. I don't think there is a neutral interpretation better than "the_donald was a lot of trouble for reddit as a business and social network, because they caused hostility, even by their existence, and it's not reddit's business to make humans less tribal, so why continue supporting them? Especially after they were clearly brigaiding and manipulating front page content. This front page manipulation was different from what the reddit owners wanted to be on the front page, which for the most part is benign and fun stuff that's easy to monetize."
  - baq 3y ago
    It should be noted we're typing this on one of the most heavily moderated (in both transparent and opaque ways) sites on the Internet.
meroes 3y ago
How can you hate those groups but not hate the_donald where mods were also a disaster?! They absolutely love to gaslight you in general. Shouldn't a good faith response to a post in the_donald not be immediately removed and OP banned? The mods would never let any non-hyperventilated group think through. It's the same with r/conspiracy back then where I happily took my ban for calling out the worst mod I've ever encountered who would again ban good faith discussion for arbitrary reasons. r/politics mods are also horrible, to add some balance. I'm banned there too.
- Firmwarrior 3y ago
  I hated the_donald plenty, mostly because they banned people for no reason or for stupid reasons. Which is the exact same offense that Reddit at large committed, but at least the_donald people were upfront about it. I think we're on the same page overall here, just that I never put any faith in the sanctity of Reddit's database
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    >the_donald people were upfront about it They sure as fuck were not! Even to this day, /Conservative still claims the moral high ground bastion of free speech and balance while banning you for any slight question of the narrative being encouraged. Importantly, this is VERBATIM what they claim /politics does.
- bmarquez 3y ago
  the_donald made it very clear that they were a subreddit trying to mimic a Trump campaign rally. You could even be a conservative, mildly critical of Trump's policy and still get banned. It never claimed to be unbiased and proudly proclaimed the opposite. On the other hand, we expect some level of fairness and professionalism from Reddit and its administrators.

rvba 3y ago

[flagged]

kstrauser 3y ago

It would be impossible for me to disagree more. Editing someone's comments to put your own words in their mouth is despicable. Basically, he impersonated those users and put them on record as saying something they'd never said. It's like the text version of a deep fake recording.

qup 3y ago
I don't disagree with this take, I just disagree with your implied evaluation of how important that is. Who cares if he put some usernames on record as saying something they never said? I know that you do, and you have your reasons, but...well, I don't. I think people are taking reddit commenting way too seriously if heads need to roll over a comment edit.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  I almost can't believe you're serious here, but I'll reply sincerely. Suppose dang edited your post to say "I like to get drunk at work", and there it is for the world to see. You never said that, but anyone looking at Hacker News would see: "qup 10 minutes ago: I like to get drunk at work." No, that's absolutely not OK! Now, consider that spez could just as easily edit some old Reddit comments someone wrote years ago to say something horrendous. Do you often go back to verify that all your old comments are unchanged? I certainly don't. I have no way of knowing exactly which comments spez edited, or how significantly he changed them. And honestly, the not knowing is simply inexcusable. All we know is that he has tampered with the production database, not how often or how much.
  - koolba 3y ago
    > All we know is that he has tampered with the production database, not how often or how much. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
    - Tuckerism 3y ago
      A phrase that eerily yet accurately sums up (or some would believe to sum up) lots of public discourse these days.
    - firecall 3y ago
      Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a Latin maxim meaning "false in one thing, false in everything". At common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in_uno,_falsus_in_omnibus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in_uno,_falsus_in_omnib...
  - IanCal 3y ago
    I think there are two distinct things getting mixed up. Should he have been able to? No, that's a concerning setup for the reasons you say. How bad is what he actually did, from what we actually know? For about an hour, comments that said "fuck spez" after he banned the pizzagate sub were changed to "fuck $the_donald_mod_name". I just don't find that a big deal. It's not like editing your comment to say you drink at work.
    - kstrauser 3y ago
      Again, all we know is that he has lied about what users have said in comments. We just don't know to what degree. For me, not knowing that is completely unacceptable. If he only made those changes and solemnly vowed never to do it again, fine, shouldn't have done it but whatever. But who besides him can say for sure?
      - IanCal 3y ago
        > Again, all we know is that he has lied about what users have said in comments You mean changing fuck spez to fuck $mod? > We just don't know to what degree Well I'm not sure what auditing they have, and I know there's public databases of all Reddit comments. It's been a while and I'm not aware of other claims. My point was more that you two were arguing at crossroads. You seemed more concerned about what could have happened, and they were talking about what has evidence.
- d4mi3n 3y ago
  This is a short-sighted argument. A list of who cares: * Any media reporting on what’s happening within Reddit. Remember when WSB was all over the news cycles? Picture that but with some malicious mod/admin setting somebody up to take the fall for equities fraud. * Any person or entity with legal or fincial muscle looking to protect their reputation or product. You don’t want Wizards of the Coast sending the Pinkertons to your door because they think you’re selling stolen goods. * Anyone who values their own reputation in the internet. Imagine being an aspiring politician and having somebody insert racial slurs into your historical posts. The issue isn’t somebody being petty, it’s that there is potential for systemic abuse of power and trust.
- duncan-donuts 3y ago
  Reddit activity has been used in court. Someone falsifying data is dangerous.
  - qup 3y ago
    I still can't agree. I would counter that using reddit activity in court is dangerous.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
  Dude have you see some of the shit that happens to people over stuff they wrote on reddit n years ago? This isn't the old days when everything on the internet was in good fun. For a lot of people these days, internet unironically srs bsns. And a lot of those people think it's okay to harass folks over their passing thoughts on the internet.
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    Imagine having to testify in court that you didn't actually say the things that the other attorney found in your social media posts, knowing that you really didn't say them but also knowing that no one's going to believe you. "Oh, sure you were hacked. _eye roll_"

dotnet00 3y ago

I think that while the trolling wasn't egregious, the issue was that words were being put in their mouths, which undermines trust. It's a whole other level of manipulation compared to even just impersonating someone.

voldacar 3y ago

>as we saw with their attacks on the_donald what attacks are you specifically referring to here, other than kicking them off the site?

anononaut 3y ago
Their manipulation of votes and what was allowed to be on /all is pretty well documented. After a certain point, the_donald and several other right-of-center subs were disallowed entirely to appear on the meta lists.
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  Honestly? Good. So many of the right wing subs were absolute breeding grounds for content violations regarding hate speech, and the sub mods turned a blind eye. It was plainly obvious they were blatantly bad actors on the site long before they got quarantined and banned.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    The original sub was nothing special rule wise in my opinion. Did you ever visit their spinoff own site? It was psychotic in comparison. Kicking them off Reddit was a mistake for society at large.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    I mean yes that's my opinion, but it's important to look at possible neutral interpretations. I don't think there is a neutral interpretation better than "the_donald was a lot of trouble for reddit as a business and social network, because they caused hostility, even by their existence, and it's not reddit's business to make humans less tribal, so why continue supporting them? Especially after they were clearly brigaiding and manipulating front page content. This front page manipulation was different from what the reddit owners wanted to be on the front page, which for the most part is benign and fun stuff that's easy to monetize."
- baq 3y ago
  It should be noted we're typing this on one of the most heavily moderated (in both transparent and opaque ways) sites on the Internet.

meroes 3y ago

How can you hate those groups but not hate the_donald where mods were also a disaster?! They absolutely love to gaslight you in general. Shouldn't a good faith response to a post in the_donald not be immediately removed and OP banned? The mods would never let any non-hyperventilated group think through. It's the same with r/conspiracy back then where I happily took my ban for calling out the worst mod I've ever encountered who would again ban good faith discussion for arbitrary reasons. r/politics mods are also horrible, to add some balance. I'm banned there too.

Firmwarrior 3y ago
I hated the_donald plenty, mostly because they banned people for no reason or for stupid reasons. Which is the exact same offense that Reddit at large committed, but at least the_donald people were upfront about it. I think we're on the same page overall here, just that I never put any faith in the sanctity of Reddit's database
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  >the_donald people were upfront about it They sure as fuck were not! Even to this day, /Conservative still claims the moral high ground bastion of free speech and balance while banning you for any slight question of the narrative being encouraged. Importantly, this is VERBATIM what they claim /politics does.
bmarquez 3y ago
the_donald made it very clear that they were a subreddit trying to mimic a Trump campaign rally. You could even be a conservative, mildly critical of Trump's policy and still get banned. It never claimed to be unbiased and proudly proclaimed the opposite. On the other hand, we expect some level of fairness and professionalism from Reddit and its administrators.