8 ms·

Former Reddit CEO says the site's about to be purged

69 points by amyjess 11y ago

nathanvanfleet 11y ago
Does Yishan Wong have some sort of huge grudge with Reddit? He seems to be constantly talking about inside/advance information about what's happening.
- fixermark 11y ago
  He'd be justified in having a grudge, as a former CEO. But I think it's more that he has no f---- to give and is 100% willing to speak his mind on the topic. Not a trait I'd want to see in all the CEOs out there, but seeing it in one former founder is... Refreshing. ;)
  - AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
    Wong is not one of the founders of reddit. He was appointed CEO.
    - fixermark 11y ago
      My mistake; thank you for the correction. Original comment updated.
- AlphaSite 11y ago
  I'd assume he's a little cheesed off with the reddit board, since they essentially scapegoated her (I'd assume a friend) for their own decisions.
  - supercanuck 11y ago
    It appears he is just Ellen Pao's proxy at this point, so I think career wise, he will be fine.
- trose 11y ago
  He was highly inappropriate when he was CEO, once having a public flamewar with a disgruntled ex-employee. I'm not surprised by his behavior but I question his motives. Looking at his comment history he seems well aware that he is blacklisting himself from ever holding an executive title again. Maybe when you have nothing left to lose you just start seeking attention?
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  He's posting with admin flair. So reddit is still allowing him to do so? Maybe this is just a PR stunt?
pushnpop 11y ago
Sounds like it is going to be a shit storm.
trose 11y ago
I for one would a little sanitization of the site. There are always going to be weirdos posting horrendous content on the internet but I'm not particularly inclined to deal with that trash. I'd love a Reddit this is only cat pics, interesting stories from other users, and celebrity interviews. We dont need to make it easy for trolls to discuss their racist/ sexist/ bullshit and harass people.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
rockdoe 11y ago
Why not link to the actual statement? https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/ct3n7hc https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/conte... The tears from all the haters will be delicious.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  the problem is, how vague is the term? The previous actions were later excused under reasons differing from what was originally understood yet implemented wholly unnervingly as certain favorite subs of the admins escaped actions. Eventually everyone will want their definition played out and in this generation of "I am offended, you must be silent" free speech is the real loser. You do not have the right to not be offended.
sharkweek 11y ago
Eh... it's their playground. While I don't like the idea of what's offensive being so subjective, there is A LOT of shit on Reddit that I would be happy to see gone. If Costco had a corner in every store where people were allowed to stand around yelling racist commentary all the time, and Costco laid out a policy to remove this from their stores, I think the majority of people would applaud this move, thus improving business. Reddit is a business and is free to do what it believes is best to grow. If it thinks this is the right move for them? Great, go for it. I actually doubt that Reddit is going to miss most of these people when they inevitably migrate somewhere else, it's not exactly a very marketable audience to begin with.
- trose 11y ago
  Yeah, I think its a vocal minority that is truly upset. The issue that compounds all of this is that it only takes a few thousand upvotes to reach the front page. So to extrapolate on your analogy, this is like the racist people in the corner protesting that they can't shout in the corner anymore. Meanwhile most of the shoppers didnt even realize that they were there and dont care enough to comment on the situation.
- acbart 11y ago
  Well, people don't go to Costco for commentary, they go there to buy things. So a more apt comparison would be a section that sells things that certain groups may find offensive - e.g., sex toys, confederate flags, bibles, guns[1]. The metaphor holds mostly, Costco is free to do what it wants to cater to those people, but I don't think it's unreasonable for some groups to want to fight to hold on. It's hard to make blanket statements about some of the groups - of course, that's less true for some than others. I don't have any horses in this race, personally, I don't think anyone is planning on banning r/corgis or r/noideadogs. As for profitability, I'd argue that stupid people with strong opinions and a need to vocalize them are advertisers favorite kind of people. They're probably surprisingly profitable. [1] Don't assume I'm putting any of those on the same level as each other, just making a list of what I suspect are violatile items to some groups.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
mcphage 11y ago
> "[S]o now The Man is going to set some Rules. Admittedly, I can't say I'm terribly upset." I can't say I am, either. To abuse Lincoln, "I believe this site cannot endure, permanently half adult conversation and half hateful filth."
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- lemevi 11y ago
  > Reddit as we know it is gone. It is not about banning some small creepy subreddits, but making sure no controversial content makes it to front page. It is not good for advertising. Reddit will be completely filled with cat videos and nice happy stories. And banned users will regroup on new site, without this drama and censorship. Nope, it will also be filled with great sub-reddits that don't involve racism, and where redditors can interact with developers of games and products better than they ever could on Twitter, talk to celebrities, post without fear of harassment, and be creative. The subreddits they are going to ban are absolutely depraved.
Animats 11y ago
Anyone remember Tribe.net? They were once San Francisco's coolest social network. Then they had a purge of sex-related topics. Read "No sex please, we're 2.0" by Violet Blue.[1] Tribe went into a screaming dive and is down to one or two employees. [1] http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/No-sex-please-we-re-2-0-Violet-Blue-looks-at-2548355.php http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/No-sex-please-we-re-2-0...
- maxerickson 11y ago
  So how do you separate out how much they fucked up and how much they got eaten alive by Facebook?
  - Animats 11y ago
    See [1]. [1] http://www.quora.com/Why-did-tribe.net-%28Mark-Pincus%29-not-work-out http://www.quora.com/Why-did-tribe.net-%28Mark-Pincus%29-not...
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
austenallred 11y ago
I honestly wouldn't mind a "purge." I don't necessarily agree that drawing the line as to what is appropriate on a website is necessarily the destruction of people being able to express themselves. HackerNews doesn't allow racism, but I don't feel my right to express my opinion (for the most part - the hivemind that is caused by upvoting comments is troubling, but another issue altogether). If people want to be blatantly racist or post teen creepershots or organize to harass fat people, let them do that somewhere else. That wouldn't harm my reddit experience whatsoever (nor would it harm the experience of 99% of reddit users). The only rational argument people can make against the "purging" (of blatantly racist etc. subreddits) is the "slippery slope" argument, which is usually known as a fallacious logical device. There is some merit to it, as reddit seems to be moving the line of appropriateness, but the line just has to be clearly drawn somewhere. That said, anything Yishan Wong says at this point should be taken with a grain of salt. When you are starting your comments with "AYYYY LMAO" and admittedly take a pleasure in hoping to watch the company that fired you crumble, you're not exactly a neutral or reliable source.
- baddox 11y ago
  > The only rational argument people can make against the "purging" (of blatantly racist etc. subreddits) is the "slippery slope" argument, which is usually known as a fallacious logical device. Not at all true. I don't like any removal of content by reddit employees (as opposed to subreddit moderators) beyond what is required by law. Whether it leads to more and more removal in the future is irrelevant. I would like reddit to be a place for completely free, uncensored expression. And before the political philosophy experts pounce, I am well aware of the argument. It's not a free speech violation when it's a private company choosing what content to host. I'm not saying reddit doesn't have the right to censor. I'm just saying I would prefer that they didn't.
  - austenallred 11y ago
    > I'm not saying reddit doesn't have the right to censor. I'm just saying I would prefer that they didn't. I'm genuinely curious as to why. Do you feel your experience on reddit is harmed if /r/coontown is gone? Or is it just the principle of the matter?
grabcocque 11y ago
About time. Reddit is a mean-spirited and self-destructive community, a fearsomely ugly website and all run by an incompetent and blasé bunch of chancers, and yet somehow it still manages to become less than the sum of its parts. It's probably far too late to do anything about it, mind.
- AndyKelley 11y ago
  This comment has no content other than "I hate Reddit".
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
wnevets 11y ago
If you find the content of a particular subreddit offensive, don't subscribe to that subreddit? Why must admins police legal content?
- johrn 11y ago
  Maybe admins don't want their site to be somewhere that stormfront considers to be their biggest recruitment center. It's not like the users who subscribe to coontown etc keep their opinions to themselves when they are using other parts of the site.
  - wnevets 11y ago
    Only users interested in /r/stormfront would visit tho. Its not like removing /r/stormfront somehow deletes racism or prevents stormfront from recruiting in the comments, news post, etc.
    - johrn 11y ago
      That's true, but it does make it clearer that they aren't welcome on the site. If Reddit deleted the subs that I visit and care about, I'd definitely feel less like giving them pageviews.
      - arprocter 11y ago
        But once you make it policy to remove 'bad' things, it can look like you endorse all the borderline things which remain
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    As with the FPH debacle, when you take down the walls, you aren't destroying the community, you are destroying the containment.
    - johrn 11y ago
      There is no containment. There is a comfy room that the FPHers or the stormfronters can hang out in and pat each other on the backs, and then there are open doors to everyone else's room that they can just walk through and spew their garbage. Removing the walls just makes them less comfortable, it doesn't suddenly release them from a prison.
ebspelman 11y ago
Reddit is a site driven by voting dynamics. It'd be unhealthy NOT to adjust those dynamics from time to time.
kozukumi 11y ago
reddit has a lot of NSFW content. I wonder if those subs are going to go?
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  Not at first, but in time almost certainly.
  - danielweber 11y ago
    I'm not willing to do this from a work network, but if you search the wayback machine [1] you can probably find when /r/nsfw disappeared following the Condé Nast purchase; and then look around that time for a thread about reddit management where some user complains about it disappearing. [1] you could try reddit search if you are feeling lucky or masochistic. Or maybe it's really good at binary date searches and I just don't know how to use it.
dang 11y ago
The rule of thumb for ongoing stories on HN is to have a new thread each time there's significant new information, and (hopefully) have it point to the most substantive source. Neither this story nor the article comes close to passing that test, so I'm burying this post as a dupe.
- publicfig 11y ago
  What story mentions the same information this one does that has been on the front page? This, at least to me, seemed to be new information. Posts about reddit seem to be more harshly removed from the front page than other stories, is it because it's a Y Combinator-backed company?
  - dang 11y ago
    As a rule we penalize stories less when they're YC related. That's actually the number one rule of HN moderation. "Less" doesn't mean "not at all", though. There's more than one concern to balance here. Doing nothing about the tidal wave of Reddit drama would definitely not be good for HN. > This, at least to me, seemed to be new information. Is it significant new information? I wouldn't say so. Here's one criterion that we have found surprisingly useful: an announcement of an announcement is not substantive. This story doesn't even rise to that level. Yes, the drama is riveting, but part of HN is not to confuse dramatic episodes with information.
- vonklaus 11y ago
  As a rule of thumb it is good to bury posts that are duplicative so the front page isn't devoted entirely to a single subject. However, it does seem like a conflict of interest given YCs involvement in reddit.
  - dang 11y ago
    HN has had an abundance of major threads about Reddit recently. Two from the last couple days alone: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9884949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9884949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9880424 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9880424 We take conflict of interest questions seriously, enough that it trumps other concerns overall, but not at the level of every single individual post. I can understand people disagreeing with this particular call—indeed, if enough people disagreed we'd happily reverse it; we're not attached to any particular decision—but no one paying attention to HN is going to think that we're banishing the Reddit saga or anything like that.
CameronBanga 11y ago
Did this just get pulled from the HN front page? I'm not a huge fan of Reddit, but it seems like news on this whole debacle has been pulled/silenced from HN. I know Reddit is a one of Y-Combinator's biggest success stories, so curious if this is really happening or if I'm just imagining it.
- chc 11y ago
  It's called flagging. Users don't feel this article is intellectually gratifying.
dataker 11y ago
I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech, but I honestly don't care about the fate of Reddit. If they start banning content, users will leave and start their own racist/misogynistic/xenophobic/... communities. Reddit's community is based on certain fundamental principals and, once they start to be violated, it's not like you can't start your own 'country'.
skizm 11y ago
Onward and upward I guess. Where's the next site that is in between 4chan and hacker news?
elektromekatron 11y ago
This will probably go about as well as naked beekeeping while drunk.
blfr 11y ago
In the announcement thread[1] commentators are pointing out all the places where Reddit appeals to free speech, like their rules[2] or Alexis Ohanian literally calling it "a bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web"[3] in direct contradiction to spez's "Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech." If you're a public figure (with archive.org if you publish anything on the web), you need to say you changed your mind when you change your mind. This "we were always..." thing politicians do just looks silly. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/ https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/conte... [2] https://www.reddit.com/rules/ https://www.reddit.com/rules/ [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/ct3jr5j https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/conte...
rhema 11y ago
This whole fiasco is so strange. What kind of CEO claims a "moral authority" to do a purge and adds a trollface picture? Also, look at the subreddits that u/spez is moderator of. For example, his subreddit r/Cannibals has a top post: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Cannibals/comments/3cxp5e/to_stop_world_hunger_we_must_simply_eat_all_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Cannibals/comments/3cxp5e/to_stop_w...] where a highly scored post from 3 days ago reads, "To stop world hunger we must simply eat all the poor people." While obviously satire, it begs the question of who decides what belongs and does not. >We tried to let you govern yourselves and you failed. On what metric?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > What kind of CEO claims a "moral authority" to do a purge and adds a trollface picture? None. A former CEO claimed the current CEO had the "moral authority" for the predicted coming purge.
- PensiveGoat 11y ago
  > Also, look at the subreddits that u/spez is moderator of. For example, his subreddit r/Cannibals... In the past your consent wasn't required to be made a moderator of a subreddit; that's probably how u/spez became a moderator of r/cannibals.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
clavalle 11y ago
I have a feeling that Reddit, with its focus on growth of the user base, is just going to play to the lowest common denominator. As soon as it is filled with what amounts to user curated network TV levels of content and the banal advertising mindset that goes with it, it will become Just Another News Aggregator and will not inspire the level of engagement it has enjoyed until now. Reddit doesn't have a sticky network effect. The content decays. People can easily jump ship. I don't understand why they are obsessed with raw 'ratings' numbers anyway. Part of what makes their user base valuable is that they are self-segmented -- it is the small, focused communities. Also that they are used to hopping off site then back again to re-engage. They are missing a huge opportunity, not to merely get more people in the door, but figure out how to serve the valuable communities that already exist there. If they keep staring at that bone in the water and open their mouths to grab it, they will lose the tasty morsel they could currently be enjoying. What they really need is some people that know how to target ads effectively to small valuable clients and some technologists with the chops to help them make a profit from that valuable connection making. Some deep experts from Google's Adwords team, for example. And they need to make the whole process above board and transparent so the userbase doesn't feel like they are being used secretly. Reddit and their commercial offerings should feel like a partner for users, a valuable available resource, not a slimy shill machine. I think that's possible to do but it is going to take a hell of a lot more finesse and openness than they've shown recently.
- johrn 11y ago
  > they will lose the tasty morsel they could currently be enjoying. That tasty morsel of hardcore racism, rabid misogyny and all sorts of other fun hate groups, and the people that defend them because anyone should be allowed to say anything they want? I don't understand why so many people think that getting rid of these groups is going to suddenly implode all the thousands of smaller, more focused communities that you mention.
  - clavalle 11y ago
    I don't mind if they get rid of the hate groups but you have to be careful -- hate is a very plastic term. If people feel like their self formed communities might come under some sort of 'distaste' police, they might just pack up and go somewhere else. Most people aren't afraid that they'll go after subreddits that are blatantly racist, they are afraid that is just the opening salvo. They are afraid that the whole place and discussions are going to end up being monitored, shaped, and censored to benefit the Reddit corporate image. And what good is a discussion board where discussions must be approved for mass consumption or worse, shaped for mass consumption? You might say, 'that wouldn't happen' and it probably wouldn't but the leadership has not been very open about what they are doing and where they draw the line so people fill the unknown with the worst case. They need a policy of containment, not eradication except in the most egregious circumstances or where the content is actually illegal. What they do need is better tools to wall them off and detect brigaiding so that kind of business, where the hate spills out, can be nipped in the bud.
swagv 11y ago
How much angst can one waste over a old digg wannabe on its way down?
waterlesscloud 11y ago
The reason this is a terrible mistake for Reddit is that now their next several years of corporate narrative will be dominated by which subs should be banned. They won't really be able to get much else attention for anything else. When they try, the conversation will be hijacked and diverted to "When will you ban subreddit X?" Once the door for this kind of thing is open this wide, it's all they're going to be able to talk about, for years. From a purely cold-blooded business perspective, it's a fatal move, just in a way that may not be immediately obvious to them.
- fixermark 11y ago
  It's a distraction, but time will tell if it's a fatal move.
- arprocter 11y ago
  Also look at the wack-a-mole which happened after the subs were banned the other day - users trolled the admins by making eleventeen new versions of the same subs

69 points by amyjess 11y ago

Does Yishan Wong have some sort of huge grudge with Reddit? He seems to be constantly talking about inside/advance information about what's happening.

fixermark 11y ago
He'd be justified in having a grudge, as a former CEO. But I think it's more that he has no f---- to give and is 100% willing to speak his mind on the topic. Not a trait I'd want to see in all the CEOs out there, but seeing it in one former founder is... Refreshing. ;)
- AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
  Wong is not one of the founders of reddit. He was appointed CEO.
  - fixermark 11y ago
    My mistake; thank you for the correction. Original comment updated.
AlphaSite 11y ago
I'd assume he's a little cheesed off with the reddit board, since they essentially scapegoated her (I'd assume a friend) for their own decisions.
- supercanuck 11y ago
  It appears he is just Ellen Pao's proxy at this point, so I think career wise, he will be fine.
trose 11y ago
He was highly inappropriate when he was CEO, once having a public flamewar with a disgruntled ex-employee. I'm not surprised by his behavior but I question his motives. Looking at his comment history he seems well aware that he is blacklisting himself from ever holding an executive title again. Maybe when you have nothing left to lose you just start seeking attention?
MichaelGG 11y ago
He's posting with admin flair. So reddit is still allowing him to do so? Maybe this is just a PR stunt?

pushnpop 11y ago

Sounds like it is going to be a shit storm.

trose 11y ago

I for one would a little sanitization of the site. There are always going to be weirdos posting horrendous content on the internet but I'm not particularly inclined to deal with that trash. I'd love a Reddit this is only cat pics, interesting stories from other users, and celebrity interviews. We dont need to make it easy for trolls to discuss their racist/ sexist/ bullshit and harass people.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

rockdoe 11y ago

Why not link to the actual statement? https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/ct3n7hc https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/conte... The tears from all the haters will be delicious.

Shivetya 11y ago
the problem is, how vague is the term? The previous actions were later excused under reasons differing from what was originally understood yet implemented wholly unnervingly as certain favorite subs of the admins escaped actions. Eventually everyone will want their definition played out and in this generation of "I am offended, you must be silent" free speech is the real loser. You do not have the right to not be offended.

sharkweek 11y ago

Eh... it's their playground. While I don't like the idea of what's offensive being so subjective, there is A LOT of shit on Reddit that I would be happy to see gone. If Costco had a corner in every store where people were allowed to stand around yelling racist commentary all the time, and Costco laid out a policy to remove this from their stores, I think the majority of people would applaud this move, thus improving business. Reddit is a business and is free to do what it believes is best to grow. If it thinks this is the right move for them? Great, go for it. I actually doubt that Reddit is going to miss most of these people when they inevitably migrate somewhere else, it's not exactly a very marketable audience to begin with.

trose 11y ago
Yeah, I think its a vocal minority that is truly upset. The issue that compounds all of this is that it only takes a few thousand upvotes to reach the front page. So to extrapolate on your analogy, this is like the racist people in the corner protesting that they can't shout in the corner anymore. Meanwhile most of the shoppers didnt even realize that they were there and dont care enough to comment on the situation.
acbart 11y ago
Well, people don't go to Costco for commentary, they go there to buy things. So a more apt comparison would be a section that sells things that certain groups may find offensive - e.g., sex toys, confederate flags, bibles, guns[1]. The metaphor holds mostly, Costco is free to do what it wants to cater to those people, but I don't think it's unreasonable for some groups to want to fight to hold on. It's hard to make blanket statements about some of the groups - of course, that's less true for some than others. I don't have any horses in this race, personally, I don't think anyone is planning on banning r/corgis or r/noideadogs. As for profitability, I'd argue that stupid people with strong opinions and a need to vocalize them are advertisers favorite kind of people. They're probably surprisingly profitable. [1] Don't assume I'm putting any of those on the same level as each other, just making a list of what I suspect are violatile items to some groups.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago

mcphage 11y ago

> "[S]o now The Man is going to set some Rules. Admittedly, I can't say I'm terribly upset." I can't say I am, either. To abuse Lincoln, "I believe this site cannot endure, permanently half adult conversation and half hateful filth."

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

lemevi 11y ago
> Reddit as we know it is gone. It is not about banning some small creepy subreddits, but making sure no controversial content makes it to front page. It is not good for advertising. Reddit will be completely filled with cat videos and nice happy stories. And banned users will regroup on new site, without this drama and censorship. Nope, it will also be filled with great sub-reddits that don't involve racism, and where redditors can interact with developers of games and products better than they ever could on Twitter, talk to celebrities, post without fear of harassment, and be creative. The subreddits they are going to ban are absolutely depraved.

Animats 11y ago

Anyone remember Tribe.net? They were once San Francisco's coolest social network. Then they had a purge of sex-related topics. Read "No sex please, we're 2.0" by Violet Blue.[1] Tribe went into a screaming dive and is down to one or two employees. [1] http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/No-sex-please-we-re-2-0-Violet-Blue-looks-at-2548355.php http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/No-sex-please-we-re-2-0...

maxerickson 11y ago
So how do you separate out how much they fucked up and how much they got eaten alive by Facebook?
- Animats 11y ago
  See [1]. [1] http://www.quora.com/Why-did-tribe.net-%28Mark-Pincus%29-not-work-out http://www.quora.com/Why-did-tribe.net-%28Mark-Pincus%29-not...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

austenallred 11y ago

I honestly wouldn't mind a "purge." I don't necessarily agree that drawing the line as to what is appropriate on a website is necessarily the destruction of people being able to express themselves. HackerNews doesn't allow racism, but I don't feel my right to express my opinion (for the most part - the hivemind that is caused by upvoting comments is troubling, but another issue altogether). If people want to be blatantly racist or post teen creepershots or organize to harass fat people, let them do that somewhere else. That wouldn't harm my reddit experience whatsoever (nor would it harm the experience of 99% of reddit users). The only rational argument people can make against the "purging" (of blatantly racist etc. subreddits) is the "slippery slope" argument, which is usually known as a fallacious logical device. There is some merit to it, as reddit seems to be moving the line of appropriateness, but the line just has to be clearly drawn somewhere. That said, anything Yishan Wong says at this point should be taken with a grain of salt. When you are starting your comments with "AYYYY LMAO" and admittedly take a pleasure in hoping to watch the company that fired you crumble, you're not exactly a neutral or reliable source.

baddox 11y ago
> The only rational argument people can make against the "purging" (of blatantly racist etc. subreddits) is the "slippery slope" argument, which is usually known as a fallacious logical device. Not at all true. I don't like any removal of content by reddit employees (as opposed to subreddit moderators) beyond what is required by law. Whether it leads to more and more removal in the future is irrelevant. I would like reddit to be a place for completely free, uncensored expression. And before the political philosophy experts pounce, I am well aware of the argument. It's not a free speech violation when it's a private company choosing what content to host. I'm not saying reddit doesn't have the right to censor. I'm just saying I would prefer that they didn't.
- austenallred 11y ago
  > I'm not saying reddit doesn't have the right to censor. I'm just saying I would prefer that they didn't. I'm genuinely curious as to why. Do you feel your experience on reddit is harmed if /r/coontown is gone? Or is it just the principle of the matter?

grabcocque 11y ago

About time. Reddit is a mean-spirited and self-destructive community, a fearsomely ugly website and all run by an incompetent and blasé bunch of chancers, and yet somehow it still manages to become less than the sum of its parts. It's probably far too late to do anything about it, mind.

AndyKelley 11y ago
This comment has no content other than "I hate Reddit".

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

wnevets 11y ago

If you find the content of a particular subreddit offensive, don't subscribe to that subreddit? Why must admins police legal content?

johrn 11y ago
Maybe admins don't want their site to be somewhere that stormfront considers to be their biggest recruitment center. It's not like the users who subscribe to coontown etc keep their opinions to themselves when they are using other parts of the site.
- wnevets 11y ago
  Only users interested in /r/stormfront would visit tho. Its not like removing /r/stormfront somehow deletes racism or prevents stormfront from recruiting in the comments, news post, etc.
  - johrn 11y ago
    That's true, but it does make it clearer that they aren't welcome on the site. If Reddit deleted the subs that I visit and care about, I'd definitely feel less like giving them pageviews.
    - arprocter 11y ago
      But once you make it policy to remove 'bad' things, it can look like you endorse all the borderline things which remain
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  As with the FPH debacle, when you take down the walls, you aren't destroying the community, you are destroying the containment.
  - johrn 11y ago
    There is no containment. There is a comfy room that the FPHers or the stormfronters can hang out in and pat each other on the backs, and then there are open doors to everyone else's room that they can just walk through and spew their garbage. Removing the walls just makes them less comfortable, it doesn't suddenly release them from a prison.

ebspelman 11y ago

Reddit is a site driven by voting dynamics. It'd be unhealthy NOT to adjust those dynamics from time to time.

kozukumi 11y ago

reddit has a lot of NSFW content. I wonder if those subs are going to go?

waterlesscloud 11y ago
Not at first, but in time almost certainly.
- danielweber 11y ago
  I'm not willing to do this from a work network, but if you search the wayback machine [1] you can probably find when /r/nsfw disappeared following the Condé Nast purchase; and then look around that time for a thread about reddit management where some user complains about it disappearing. [1] you could try reddit search if you are feeling lucky or masochistic. Or maybe it's really good at binary date searches and I just don't know how to use it.

dang 11y ago

The rule of thumb for ongoing stories on HN is to have a new thread each time there's significant new information, and (hopefully) have it point to the most substantive source. Neither this story nor the article comes close to passing that test, so I'm burying this post as a dupe.

publicfig 11y ago
What story mentions the same information this one does that has been on the front page? This, at least to me, seemed to be new information. Posts about reddit seem to be more harshly removed from the front page than other stories, is it because it's a Y Combinator-backed company?
- dang 11y ago
  As a rule we penalize stories less when they're YC related. That's actually the number one rule of HN moderation. "Less" doesn't mean "not at all", though. There's more than one concern to balance here. Doing nothing about the tidal wave of Reddit drama would definitely not be good for HN. > This, at least to me, seemed to be new information. Is it significant new information? I wouldn't say so. Here's one criterion that we have found surprisingly useful: an announcement of an announcement is not substantive. This story doesn't even rise to that level. Yes, the drama is riveting, but part of HN is not to confuse dramatic episodes with information.
vonklaus 11y ago
As a rule of thumb it is good to bury posts that are duplicative so the front page isn't devoted entirely to a single subject. However, it does seem like a conflict of interest given YCs involvement in reddit.
- dang 11y ago
  HN has had an abundance of major threads about Reddit recently. Two from the last couple days alone: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9884949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9884949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9880424 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9880424 We take conflict of interest questions seriously, enough that it trumps other concerns overall, but not at the level of every single individual post. I can understand people disagreeing with this particular call—indeed, if enough people disagreed we'd happily reverse it; we're not attached to any particular decision—but no one paying attention to HN is going to think that we're banishing the Reddit saga or anything like that.

CameronBanga 11y ago

Did this just get pulled from the HN front page? I'm not a huge fan of Reddit, but it seems like news on this whole debacle has been pulled/silenced from HN. I know Reddit is a one of Y-Combinator's biggest success stories, so curious if this is really happening or if I'm just imagining it.

chc 11y ago
It's called flagging. Users don't feel this article is intellectually gratifying.

dataker 11y ago

I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech, but I honestly don't care about the fate of Reddit. If they start banning content, users will leave and start their own racist/misogynistic/xenophobic/... communities. Reddit's community is based on certain fundamental principals and, once they start to be violated, it's not like you can't start your own 'country'.

skizm 11y ago

Onward and upward I guess. Where's the next site that is in between 4chan and hacker news?

elektromekatron 11y ago

This will probably go about as well as naked beekeeping while drunk.

blfr 11y ago

In the announcement thread[1] commentators are pointing out all the places where Reddit appeals to free speech, like their rules[2] or Alexis Ohanian literally calling it "a bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web"[3] in direct contradiction to spez's "Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech." If you're a public figure (with archive.org if you publish anything on the web), you need to say you changed your mind when you change your mind. This "we were always..." thing politicians do just looks silly. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/ https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/conte... [2] https://www.reddit.com/rules/ https://www.reddit.com/rules/ [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/ct3jr5j https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/conte...

rhema 11y ago

This whole fiasco is so strange. What kind of CEO claims a "moral authority" to do a purge and adds a trollface picture? Also, look at the subreddits that u/spez is moderator of. For example, his subreddit r/Cannibals has a top post: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Cannibals/comments/3cxp5e/to_stop_world_hunger_we_must_simply_eat_all_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Cannibals/comments/3cxp5e/to_stop_w...] where a highly scored post from 3 days ago reads, "To stop world hunger we must simply eat all the poor people." While obviously satire, it begs the question of who decides what belongs and does not. >We tried to let you govern yourselves and you failed. On what metric?

dragonwriter 11y ago
> What kind of CEO claims a "moral authority" to do a purge and adds a trollface picture? None. A former CEO claimed the current CEO had the "moral authority" for the predicted coming purge.
PensiveGoat 11y ago
> Also, look at the subreddits that u/spez is moderator of. For example, his subreddit r/Cannibals... In the past your consent wasn't required to be made a moderator of a subreddit; that's probably how u/spez became a moderator of r/cannibals.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

clavalle 11y ago

I have a feeling that Reddit, with its focus on growth of the user base, is just going to play to the lowest common denominator. As soon as it is filled with what amounts to user curated network TV levels of content and the banal advertising mindset that goes with it, it will become Just Another News Aggregator and will not inspire the level of engagement it has enjoyed until now. Reddit doesn't have a sticky network effect. The content decays. People can easily jump ship. I don't understand why they are obsessed with raw 'ratings' numbers anyway. Part of what makes their user base valuable is that they are self-segmented -- it is the small, focused communities. Also that they are used to hopping off site then back again to re-engage. They are missing a huge opportunity, not to merely get more people in the door, but figure out how to serve the valuable communities that already exist there. If they keep staring at that bone in the water and open their mouths to grab it, they will lose the tasty morsel they could currently be enjoying. What they really need is some people that know how to target ads effectively to small valuable clients and some technologists with the chops to help them make a profit from that valuable connection making. Some deep experts from Google's Adwords team, for example. And they need to make the whole process above board and transparent so the userbase doesn't feel like they are being used secretly. Reddit and their commercial offerings should feel like a partner for users, a valuable available resource, not a slimy shill machine. I think that's possible to do but it is going to take a hell of a lot more finesse and openness than they've shown recently.

johrn 11y ago
> they will lose the tasty morsel they could currently be enjoying. That tasty morsel of hardcore racism, rabid misogyny and all sorts of other fun hate groups, and the people that defend them because anyone should be allowed to say anything they want? I don't understand why so many people think that getting rid of these groups is going to suddenly implode all the thousands of smaller, more focused communities that you mention.
- clavalle 11y ago
  I don't mind if they get rid of the hate groups but you have to be careful -- hate is a very plastic term. If people feel like their self formed communities might come under some sort of 'distaste' police, they might just pack up and go somewhere else. Most people aren't afraid that they'll go after subreddits that are blatantly racist, they are afraid that is just the opening salvo. They are afraid that the whole place and discussions are going to end up being monitored, shaped, and censored to benefit the Reddit corporate image. And what good is a discussion board where discussions must be approved for mass consumption or worse, shaped for mass consumption? You might say, 'that wouldn't happen' and it probably wouldn't but the leadership has not been very open about what they are doing and where they draw the line so people fill the unknown with the worst case. They need a policy of containment, not eradication except in the most egregious circumstances or where the content is actually illegal. What they do need is better tools to wall them off and detect brigaiding so that kind of business, where the hate spills out, can be nipped in the bud.

swagv 11y ago

How much angst can one waste over a old digg wannabe on its way down?

waterlesscloud 11y ago

The reason this is a terrible mistake for Reddit is that now their next several years of corporate narrative will be dominated by which subs should be banned. They won't really be able to get much else attention for anything else. When they try, the conversation will be hijacked and diverted to "When will you ban subreddit X?" Once the door for this kind of thing is open this wide, it's all they're going to be able to talk about, for years. From a purely cold-blooded business perspective, it's a fatal move, just in a way that may not be immediately obvious to them.

fixermark 11y ago
It's a distraction, but time will tell if it's a fatal move.
arprocter 11y ago
Also look at the wack-a-mole which happened after the subs were banned the other day - users trolled the admins by making eleventeen new versions of the same subs