4 ms·

Turning racist subreddits into cost centers feels like a good alignment of incentives, but it's weird to give toxic users an ad-free experience because they're

Turning racist subreddits into cost centers feels like a good alignment of incentives, but it's weird to give toxic users an ad-free experience because they're toxic.

icebraining 11y ago
It's not like the Reddit ads are particularly taxing, though.
jchendy 11y ago
There are other options. Like filling the ad space with PSAs.
mavhc 11y ago
If you really want to keep the assholes, and I've no idea why you would, just charge them for using your server, they either pay or clean up their users. People will be begging to be let back into the free hosting section
- kbenson 11y ago
  The problem with this is that it can easily lead to a situation a few years down the line where the problem subreddits are the ones paying the bills, and the incentives of the company could easily get skewed. E.g. instead of making it harder to get to those subreddits, you start advertising for them in other subreddits, while keeping the paywall intact.
munchbunny 11y ago
That's an interesting point, but my read on Huffman's original comment is that it's more for market reasons. I work in the ad tech industry, and my read is that this is Huffman trying to assure brands that Reddit is a reputable venue for advertising. For example, most major brands are VERY skittish about going anywhere near family unfriendly content because they don't want to be associated with a questionable site. From this perspective, accidentally giving toxic users an ad-free experience (a small thing) is a worthwhile tradeoff if it means you can attract the big advertisers (a huge thing).
- MBCook 11y ago
  I wonder if this is good enough for advertisers. The problem content is still there, is still hosted on the site they're paying money to. Someone can still say 'Walmart is supporting a site full of hate speech' if they advertise and be right.
- davidgerard 11y ago
  Unfortunately, it will remain a true statement that "Reddit hosts the largest white-nationalist forum on the Internet" (just /r/coontown alone already has nearly the pageviews of Stormfront). It is literally true that every advertising dollar will be supporting Nazis. That's not going to be an easy sell.
brighteyes 11y ago
They could still show ads, and donate the profits to charity. If the charity is opposite to the subreddit, it could even motivate people to leave (say, coontown ads could be donated to a charity related to #blacklivesmatter).
MichaelGG 11y ago
Eh it might help increase active user counts. Instead of getting a simple over-18 prompt, users will see a page line "sign up for a FREE account to see this stuff we can't show you otherwise".
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Damn that is an interesting perspective on it. Maybe show them adds selected to piss them off rather than please them. Popup, modal, moving all over the screen type of ads. If they leave, no money is made and they're gone temporarily. If they fight ads in protest, money is made which can be invested into more frustrating technology. Let's play!

Turning racist subreddits into cost centers feels like a good alignment of incentives, but it's weird to give toxic users an ad-free experience because they're toxic.

icebraining 11y ago

It's not like the Reddit ads are particularly taxing, though.

jchendy 11y ago

There are other options. Like filling the ad space with PSAs.

mavhc 11y ago

If you really want to keep the assholes, and I've no idea why you would, just charge them for using your server, they either pay or clean up their users. People will be begging to be let back into the free hosting section

kbenson 11y ago
The problem with this is that it can easily lead to a situation a few years down the line where the problem subreddits are the ones paying the bills, and the incentives of the company could easily get skewed. E.g. instead of making it harder to get to those subreddits, you start advertising for them in other subreddits, while keeping the paywall intact.

munchbunny 11y ago

That's an interesting point, but my read on Huffman's original comment is that it's more for market reasons. I work in the ad tech industry, and my read is that this is Huffman trying to assure brands that Reddit is a reputable venue for advertising. For example, most major brands are VERY skittish about going anywhere near family unfriendly content because they don't want to be associated with a questionable site. From this perspective, accidentally giving toxic users an ad-free experience (a small thing) is a worthwhile tradeoff if it means you can attract the big advertisers (a huge thing).

MBCook 11y ago
I wonder if this is good enough for advertisers. The problem content is still there, is still hosted on the site they're paying money to. Someone can still say 'Walmart is supporting a site full of hate speech' if they advertise and be right.
davidgerard 11y ago
Unfortunately, it will remain a true statement that "Reddit hosts the largest white-nationalist forum on the Internet" (just /r/coontown alone already has nearly the pageviews of Stormfront). It is literally true that every advertising dollar will be supporting Nazis. That's not going to be an easy sell.

brighteyes 11y ago

They could still show ads, and donate the profits to charity. If the charity is opposite to the subreddit, it could even motivate people to leave (say, coontown ads could be donated to a charity related to #blacklivesmatter).

MichaelGG 11y ago

Eh it might help increase active user counts. Instead of getting a simple over-18 prompt, users will see a page line "sign up for a FREE account to see this stuff we can't show you otherwise".

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Damn that is an interesting perspective on it. Maybe show them adds selected to piss them off rather than please them. Popup, modal, moving all over the screen type of ads. If they leave, no money is made and they're gone temporarily. If they fight ads in protest, money is made which can be invested into more frustrating technology. Let's play!