4 ms·

>> I think it's just the sense of heebie-jeebies That's the start of most 'war-on-obscenity' arguments, and usually leads to no constructive ideas. I hate the

by serf 12y ago

>> I think it's just the sense of heebie-jeebies That's the start of most 'war-on-obscenity' arguments, and usually leads to no constructive ideas. I hate the topic (abusive pornography/snuff) as much as you, but that rational is inappropriate given the peoples' wide variety of tastes in this world, if the material is indeed legal for your region of the world. >> More broadly speaking, I would be very willing to bet that an internet community that places harsher standards on acceptable content would result in a better environment for those involved historically that has only served to push users to other services. the success of the regionalization of 2channel into what 4chan is now is a good example. 4chan's success is widely attributed to the pseudo-anonymity that it's users enjoy, and the founder of the site spoke at TED a few years back on what exactly the benefits of such a relationship with their userbase is. http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_m00t_poole_the_case_for_anonymity_online?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_m00t_poole_the_case_for...

iSnow 12y ago
>historically that has only served to push users to other services. But this is exactly what you want - get rid of the low-quality users and offload them somewhere else. reddit has gotten itself quite a questionable image tolerating pornographic jailbait, necrophiliac porn, stolen nudes and domestic abusers on its platform for very long.
- verroq 12y ago
  And who is to say these users are inherently low quality? Enjoying any anything socially unacceptable doesn't preclude them from creating content you may enjoy in another subreddit.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    While those users are creating and posting dog porn they are of low value to me. They're creating noise not signal; consuming resources; and creating negative brand associations. By asking them to take their dog porn elsewhere I risk losing them altogether (which currently isn't much loss) or they start posting other content.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - verroq 12y ago
      >They're creating noise not signal Signal to people who care. "They shouldn't be posting X because I don't like X" sounds extremely entitled to me. "They are damaging the brand value of the site" which has nothing to do with you. When I criticise Apple (and you use Apple products), there is no need to take it personally.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        A company is free to care about users who want dog porn. That company should not be surprised when other users, or advertisers, steer clear of that company or its brand.
  - iSnow 12y ago
    I'd argue that personality traits cluster, so that someone who frequents a fappenings-subreddit is way more likely to doxx your users, troll or cause other disturbances than people who don't. And of course, junk traffic breeds more junk traffic. Even if the first generation of a shady subreddit might make this up with quality in other parts of your site, it will invariably attract generation 2 and later which will create a mini-eternal September.
    - verroq 12y ago
      I'd argue it's orthogonal. >And of course, junk traffic breeds more junk traffic. Even if the first generation of a shady subreddit might make this up with quality in other parts of your site, it will invariably attract generation 2 and later which will create a mini-eternal September. You can argue both ways, the quality increase will attract more quality users.

by serf 12y ago

iSnow 12y ago

>historically that has only served to push users to other services. But this is exactly what you want - get rid of the low-quality users and offload them somewhere else. reddit has gotten itself quite a questionable image tolerating pornographic jailbait, necrophiliac porn, stolen nudes and domestic abusers on its platform for very long.

verroq 12y ago
And who is to say these users are inherently low quality? Enjoying any anything socially unacceptable doesn't preclude them from creating content you may enjoy in another subreddit.
- DanBC 12y ago
  While those users are creating and posting dog porn they are of low value to me. They're creating noise not signal; consuming resources; and creating negative brand associations. By asking them to take their dog porn elsewhere I risk losing them altogether (which currently isn't much loss) or they start posting other content.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - verroq 12y ago
    >They're creating noise not signal Signal to people who care. "They shouldn't be posting X because I don't like X" sounds extremely entitled to me. "They are damaging the brand value of the site" which has nothing to do with you. When I criticise Apple (and you use Apple products), there is no need to take it personally.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      A company is free to care about users who want dog porn. That company should not be surprised when other users, or advertisers, steer clear of that company or its brand.
- iSnow 12y ago
  I'd argue that personality traits cluster, so that someone who frequents a fappenings-subreddit is way more likely to doxx your users, troll or cause other disturbances than people who don't. And of course, junk traffic breeds more junk traffic. Even if the first generation of a shady subreddit might make this up with quality in other parts of your site, it will invariably attract generation 2 and later which will create a mini-eternal September.
  - verroq 12y ago
    I'd argue it's orthogonal. >And of course, junk traffic breeds more junk traffic. Even if the first generation of a shady subreddit might make this up with quality in other parts of your site, it will invariably attract generation 2 and later which will create a mini-eternal September. You can argue both ways, the quality increase will attract more quality users.