Ho. ly. Fuck. I knew Reddit was transitioning to becoming an advertising platform, but this is taking things to whole new level. Companies owning user profiles? Company employees acting as...
This year, it vastly expanded its program that allows companies to own their own Reddit pages.
AMAs that start on a brand page don't need to be labeled as advertising
For AMAs on branded pages, moderators from the company have full control over which comments get approved and removed, and they have the ability to ban users.
Ho. ly. Fuck.
I knew Reddit was transitioning to becoming an advertising platform, but this is taking things to whole new level. Companies owning user profiles? Company employees acting as moderators and banning people? Ha. They're going to have to remove the "thou shalt not moderate for financial gain" clause from their User Agreement!
And we all knew that celebrities use AMAs to promote something, but now they can be paid for and not even identified as advertising.
I've been giving Reddit the benefit of the doubt, but no longer. They're selling out, pure and simple.
It's ironic considering that what made AMAs insanely popular was the fact they were unscripted, informal, and really could go either way depending on the interaction with Redditors. Now they're...
It's ironic considering that what made AMAs insanely popular was the fact they were unscripted, informal, and really could go either way depending on the interaction with Redditors.
Now they're absolutely not different from any other sort of fan Q&A on the net. You can feel it, too... Just go back and reread old AMAs and you'll be amazed how sanitized they've now become. I think PR agents saw Woody Harrelson and Morgan Freeman as cautionary tales, while they were, in their own ways, a direct consequence of why AMAs were so great.
Not only that, but AMAs originally had absolutely nothing to do with notoriety. It had to do with the the freedom of actually asking people anything. The slogan they still use is a relic from a...
It's ironic considering that what made AMAs insanely popular was the fact they were unscripted, informal, and really could go either way depending on the interaction with Redditors.
Not only that, but AMAs originally had absolutely nothing to do with notoriety. It had to do with the the freedom of actually asking people anything. The slogan they still use is a relic from a time when that subreddit had a completely different purpose: "where the mundane becomes fascinating and the outrageous suddenly seems normal." It was about the lives of everyday people, and the freedom of asking them anything.
But it turned into celebrities and promotion and we're at a point now where most people don't even remember what it was originally for.
It feels so weird for me because I have been on reddit pretty much my entire adult life. From 2007ish-now, this spans high school and college for me. It blows my mind how much of a 180 the site...
It feels so weird for me because I have been on reddit pretty much my entire adult life. From 2007ish-now, this spans high school and college for me. It blows my mind how much of a 180 the site has done. Their original goals were very similar to how ~ is currently operating. I know its the rule of online communities that they degrade in quality given enough time but it's tough to say goodbye to a place that I have been apart of during my most formative years.
But regardless of my personal feelings, those numbers are absolutely mind blowing and I can't believe they held from selling out as long as they did:
(Reddit) will top $100 million in revenue in 2018
Twitter, which has about the same amount of active monthly users, pulled in $655 million in ad revenue during the first quarter alone.
It sucks but I can not blame them, that is so much money that they are not taking advantage of. Like I mentioned, they held out a surprisingly long time. Considering how much more functionality there is to Reddit vs. Twitter, I can only imagine they will make a killing. The only thing that really sucks is how they aren't even addressing the fact that they are betraying their core user base.
They were mostly able to hold out because they hadn't taken any significant investments and there weren't really any expectations to make the company worth a massive amount of money. Then they...
They were mostly able to hold out because they hadn't taken any significant investments and there weren't really any expectations to make the company worth a massive amount of money. Then they took $50M in September 2014 from venture capitalists, and then $200M more just under a year ago. Now there's extreme pressure to start making the company worth the kind of valuation that those investors expect.
I mainly spend my time on /r/nba, and have found over the last year the twitter diaspora is crazy. /r/nba is literally the most active sub on reddit at times, sometimes even during their...
I mainly spend my time on /r/nba, and have found over the last year the twitter diaspora is crazy. /r/nba is literally the most active sub on reddit at times, sometimes even during their offseason. Only really battling with /r/askreddit for activity a lot of the time. A place for you to check
The tone of posts has changed so, so much over the last year it's kinda shocking. I've started to RES tag as many bots as I can, and I'm finding almost all the major posts are posted by them. Almost all the top comments are populated by easy memes and the same group of people "grinding it out" in the new section of the subreddit.
Granted, all of these things have existed on Reddit for a long time. Bots, and astroturfing, and vote manipulation have been prevalent for as long as the site has existed.. Maybe it's just me starting to notice it more.
There's a conspiratorial part of me that's thinking: a lot of major corporations are noticing that popularity on reddit means tangible results in their busines. It would take next to no resources to get 20-50 people to "spin" your story on reddit by elevating your position and downvoting the rest into obscurity.
I'm so glad I'm not the only person to notice this. It's been really frustrating lately (past year or so) to read any comments on any thread on reddit. I was just noticing this morning that I was...
The tone of posts has changed so, so much over the last year it's kinda shocking.
I'm so glad I'm not the only person to notice this. It's been really frustrating lately (past year or so) to read any comments on any thread on reddit. I was just noticing this morning that I was getting upset/worked up over some issue that has absolutely no relevance to me other than I saw the reddit post.
Everyone seems so hostile and combative over every little thing.
As an aside, I used to think I could trust most posts on reddit to be non-paid, non-promotional posts. Now, it's hard to take any post at face value over there.
Aaron had very little to do with reddit. He was basically forced to merge his company with reddit because the site he was working on (Infogami) was failing, and he only worked at the merged...
Aaron had very little to do with reddit. He was basically forced to merge his company with reddit because the site he was working on (Infogami) was failing, and he only worked at the merged company for a few months. He wasn't even working on reddit a lot of the time he was there, he was still working on Infogami (and some code shared between both). Then reddit was acquired, he stopped showing up to work shortly after, and got fired.
He was an amazing guy in many ways and accomplished a lot, but reddit isn't really one of the things he should get much credit for.
Aaron didn't help develop Markdown, but he was one of the earliest people to "get" Markdown. Most of Gruber's other friends politely passed on providing feedback, reasoning "but why wouldn't I...
He was one of the main developers of the markdown spec.
Aaron didn't help develop Markdown, but he was one of the earliest people to "get" Markdown. Most of Gruber's other friends politely passed on providing feedback, reasoning "but why wouldn't I just write HTML?"
Gruber once described Aaron as his "muse" for Markdown and Aaron's feedback was instrumental at a time when the Markdown spec was still forming and Gruber wasn't getting much feedback from other sources. But ultimately it's Gruber's baby, it was his idea, he defined it, he wrote the original parser.
I think (like @go1dfish says in reply to my comment) it was mostly Paul Graham's. It's not a coincidence that Hacker News is extremely similar to early reddit—Paul Graham created it too. Steve and...
I think (like @go1dfish says in reply to my comment) it was mostly Paul Graham's. It's not a coincidence that Hacker News is extremely similar to early reddit—Paul Graham created it too.
Steve and Alexis applied to YCombinator with a completely different idea (some sort of mobile food-ordering thing), got rejected, and Paul told them they could be in if they built his idea instead. I don't think either of them has much investment in the concept of reddit itself, only the fact that it's successful.
That's the feeling I got as well. When all the old guard admins that helped build the site start leaving, you know the site is going in the wrong direction. When obvious spammers became "content...
I don't think either of them has much investment in the concept of reddit itself, only the fact that it's successful.
That's the feeling I got as well. When all the old guard admins that helped build the site start leaving, you know the site is going in the wrong direction. When obvious spammers became "content creators" and were left to mods or bots like the sentinel, it showed that advertising was their only future end game.
Also in the source article, the emphasis is mine: Does this mean that they don't have to label such promoted stuff as ads in jurisdictions where this kind of labelling is not required?
Also in the source article, the emphasis is mine:
Once the AMA becomes promoted by the company elsewhere on Reddit, it is labeled as an ad in accordance with federal regulations.
Does this mean that they don't have to label such promoted stuff as ads in jurisdictions where this kind of labelling is not required?
With all due respect, you are overreacting. While you & I may not like it, Reddit has always been a for profit tech startup, which means user growth first and then greed. Advertising will be...
They're selling out, pure and simple.
With all due respect, you are overreacting.
While you & I may not like it, Reddit has always been a for profit tech startup, which means user growth first and then greed.
Advertising will be fairly obvious. Any AMA on a brand page will still be readily identifiable as a corporate plug.
And the users are naturally revolting, which should limit the use of dark patterns.
This does not mean subreddits, far as I can tell, only user profile pages. The example in the article is from https: //www.reddit.com/user/audisportusa/. I feel like this is an important...
For AMAs on branded pages, moderators from the company have full control over which comments get approved and removed, and they have the ability to ban users.
This does not mean subreddits, far as I can tell, only user profile pages. The example in the article is from https: //www.reddit.com/user/audisportusa/. I feel like this is an important distinction to note, though I'm not saying I support what reddit's doing.
Well yeah, Reddit now allows you to post to your profile, which you can freely moderate. Which was obviously implemented specifically for this purpose.
Well yeah, Reddit now allows you to post to your profile, which you can freely moderate. Which was obviously implemented specifically for this purpose.
Seems like it's just formalizing what has already been going on for years - companies have hired PR firms to control the narrative on websites that have content associated with them. Plenty of...
Seems like it's just formalizing what has already been going on for years - companies have hired PR firms to control the narrative on websites that have content associated with them. Plenty of subreddits are effected by companies and even advocacy groups such that they effectively control the discussion.
At the end of the day, they rely on advertising? This is ridiculous, sure a few ads here and there and per-subreddit are okay because they're more relevant. But relying on ads? When you have...
At the end of the day, they rely on advertising? This is ridiculous, sure a few ads here and there and per-subreddit are okay because they're more relevant. But relying on ads? When you have Reddit Gold, a decent way to get people to pay up? If Reddit is user-focused, they would allow users to pay for the servers and mods and the development and ops time directly; just like with Reddit Gold.
It seems to me like they are deliberately sacrificing the old userbase for a younger, "more naive" audience. I moderate a medium-sized subreddit, and I am seriously considering just closing the thing down, because I'm not going to be willing to adapt my bots to a work with a crippled API (its bad enough as it is). And let's be real here, the API will be crippled in the near future. Do you really think you'll be allowed to have an ad-free and tracking-free experience in a third-party app when they are done with this redesign project?
They went closed-source.
They removed the cloudsearch syntax from the search API. That may not seem very signifficant since very few people used it for their day to day redditing. But this was the only way of acquiring submissions older than the most recent 1000 for any given subreddit. Now there is no way to obtain old data, short of searching for random keywords and checking the date. I guess they don't want you to benefit from the aggregated data.
They abandoned iterative development to do a redesign-by-giant-committee. They are just pushing hostile shit and adjust if the complaints get too loud. That's a clear warning sign of things to come.
They rolled out the redesign on wide scale while it was not even close to alpha state. Half of the endpoints just straight up didn't work, and the remaining half was broken, like flairs, rules, css, and basically everything else.
The new system refuses to serve hosted image content to non-trackable clients (ie, you need img.png?sid=valid_sid to get image data). It also includes some rather hostile tracking technology, I forget the details but it was described in /r/privacy somewhere.
At this point, it seems like the best thing to do is to set my subreddits to private so at least I am not contributing to their $100M revenue... but yeah, unfortunately it sucks for the community (and possibly other mods interested to keep the place running), hard decision to pull the trigger :/
The core of the issue is that reddit's goal isn't "become sustainable". Now that they've taken a bunch of venture capital recently, the goal is more like "reach $15B+ valuation and get acquired or...
The core of the issue is that reddit's goal isn't "become sustainable". Now that they've taken a bunch of venture capital recently, the goal is more like "reach $15B+ valuation and get acquired or IPO", because that's the only outcome that VCs want.
Reddit gold doesn't bring in anywhere near enough money to get a valuation like that, and it never will. I know this very well, because I worked at reddit as the "gold engineer". Heavy advertising and other similar approaches are the only options reddit has for their goal now, and they know this—it's why they're hiring hundreds of ad sales and data people, while gold has been neglected and only had features taken away from it for years.
I believe it's absolutely possible for a reddit-like site to operate sustainably on a gold-like model, but because of some of the decisions they've made, it's no longer possible for reddit itself to be that site. I'm hoping Tildes will be it.
That makes sense; they've tied themselves to the unsustainable imperialist growth model. The more I look at tech, the more I see the imperialist empire model. What's wrong with pissing off a bunch...
That makes sense; they've tied themselves to the unsustainable imperialist growth model. The more I look at tech, the more I see the imperialist empire model. What's wrong with pissing off a bunch of people and actively harming them in order to satisfy the investors and the secondary investors, the advertisers?
I believe it's absolutely possible for a reddit-like site to operate sustainably on a gold-like model
I'm not SourceContribute, but my take on this is that it's about the underlying assumption at the base of capitalism: grow or die. It's not enough to just be good at what you do, and earn the same...
I'm not SourceContribute, but my take on this is that it's about the underlying assumption at the base of capitalism: grow or die. It's not enough to just be good at what you do, and earn the same profit this year as last year, and keep ticking over year after year. You have to earn more this year than last year, and even more next year. That means you need to keep growing your business. You can't just run one shop or one site. You have to open a second shop or expand your userbase. You need to out-compete the shop down the street or the other website. You need to poach their customers or their users. In the best world, you need to kill off your competitors to gain their marketshare. Grow or die.
It's wrong, of course. There's nothing wrong with simply running a business that makes the same profit year after year (adjusted for inflation and such things). Some people live long and happy lives that way. But capitalism as a worldview seems to be based on this "grow or die" assumption.
That leads to an imperialist growth model: where you have to keep growing or die. Only the fittest shall survive.
It's worth noting that grow or die associates with empires and corporations for the same reasons. Both become stronger because of the resources they acquire by bringing in new stakeholders, and...
It's worth noting that grow or die associates with empires and corporations for the same reasons. Both become stronger because of the resources they acquire by bringing in new stakeholders, and both are forced to continue that growth in order to keep pleasing their stakeholders.
Thanks for explaining - and explaining it well at that :) No kidding though. For a couple of years after the 2008 crisis, it seemed like the politicians talked about nothing but growth, growth,...
Thanks for explaining - and explaining it well at that :)
No kidding though. For a couple of years after the 2008 crisis, it seemed like the politicians talked about nothing but growth, growth, growth...
Essentially, for startups they're driven by growth. If you can't show a hockey-stick curve in a graph somewhere, you're doing something wrong. You need to scale up as fast and as large as...
Essentially, for startups they're driven by growth. If you can't show a hockey-stick curve in a graph somewhere, you're doing something wrong. You need to scale up as fast and as large as possible. This differs from the usual small business which is driven by profits. VC/Venture Capital directly contributes to the growth model of startups. For larger companies, the equivalent would be burning through cash to acquire (or merge) with companies based on their growth (especially their user base growth).
The reason I put imperialist is because it's following the imperialist model which meant acquiring new resources and territories. The idea got into my head thanks to the book Software, Infrastructure, Labor.
There's a section in the book that speaks about software companies as if they were imperialist outposts and you can see how well this analogy works. The office has a hierarchy, it has a bureaucracy and it's all in the service of getting profits for the far-away investors who may visit once in a while. The users aren't customers so much as they are the population that will be used in the extraction of profits, usually through the collection and sale of their data. The workers are subject populations as well, having to pay attention to the bureaucratic laws of the empire and pay tribute to the governor of the region.
The imperialism analogy is fairly strong but I admit it does break down at some points; it's still useful however when thinking about the impact of software companies and how Big Tech is building empires.
Sonofabitch. I wondered why I was having such a hard time pulling up really old threads from the listentothis archives. We flair-tag everything important so it used to show up no problem in reddit...
They removed the cloudsearch syntax from the search API
Sonofabitch. I wondered why I was having such a hard time pulling up really old threads from the listentothis archives. We flair-tag everything important so it used to show up no problem in reddit search, now I can only find those old posts by using google.
That's the thing, I would love for more sites to have low cost subscription options like that. Sure, it would take a decent number of people subscribing to support development and Infrastructure...
That's the thing, I would love for more sites to have low cost subscription options like that. Sure, it would take a decent number of people subscribing to support development and Infrastructure costs, but for a link aggregation and discussion site, I would imagine an optimized site wouldn't require a lot of infrastructure per user (~ for example).
It's because tildes takes a stand against hate speech that there'll be a free and open ability to post here for as many people as possible. Intentionally intimidating and scaring people away by...
It's because tildes takes a stand against hate speech that there'll be a free and open ability to post here for as many people as possible.
Intentionally intimidating and scaring people away by intentionally being a dick limits free speech in practice much more than the alternative.
Yup. If you want an example, just look at TrueReddit. Completely unmoderated subreddit with the stated purpose of discussion of insightful articles. It's got a whopping half a million subscribers,...
Yup. If you want an example, just look at TrueReddit. Completely unmoderated subreddit with the stated purpose of discussion of insightful articles. It's got a whopping half a million subscribers, but if you only looked at the comment sections you'd never guess. Sub's about as active as one 1/10th the size because the comments sections these days almost universally consist of flamewars of nazis and alt right versus everyone else, which is extremely offputting to say the least.
The intense free speech advocates always seem to overlook things like this, I actually agree with the philosophy itself but when it comes to online communities once you get enough people together...
The intense free speech advocates always seem to overlook things like this, I actually agree with the philosophy itself but when it comes to online communities once you get enough people together "true" free speech always devolves into chaos and literal nazism. I'd blame the inherit nature of the medium being disconnected from reality, and also "small" in the sense that many more people are reading / commenting in each topic than in a physical space. If some guy is standing on the street corner advocating the genocide of brown people I can go somewhere else, but one guy is more than capable of spamming every single thread with hateful rhetoric. Your voice carries a lot farther online.
Ah, but speech isn't action! Just saying you want to kill people isn't the same as actually killing them. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me." So, we should let...
Ah, but speech isn't action! Just saying you want to kill people isn't the same as actually killing them. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me." So, we should let those people talk about genocide and oppression and hatred... because they're not actually KILLING anyone, are they? Just saying you want to murder someone can't hurt them... can it?
From a piece of fiction performed on stage? Not very many, I would assume. It's not like that was part of a speech given by a political leader or other high-profile person, actually exhorting...
From a piece of fiction performed on stage? Not very many, I would assume. It's not like that was part of a speech given by a political leader or other high-profile person, actually exhorting people to kill all JewsblacksMuslimslawyers.
I reckon that while some don't understand (and maybe some would eventually agree that some speech should be limited), many are advocates of free speech because they want to keep the ability to...
I reckon that while some don't understand (and maybe some would eventually agree that some speech should be limited), many are advocates of free speech because they want to keep the ability to harass and malign those they disagree with existing in public spaces. So, they couch their deplorable views in free speech issues while they really mean "freedom to say whatever mean thing I want to people I don't like". Which is reason enough, as you point out, to limit speech.
I wasn't super active on Reddit during the Physical_Removal debacle (aside from creating the parody subreddit Digital_Removal), but weren't they advocating killing people for their beliefs in a...
I wasn't super active on Reddit during the Physical_Removal debacle (aside from creating the parody subreddit Digital_Removal), but weren't they advocating killing people for their beliefs in a manner that goes past the notion of "I don't like X, they should all die"?
I seem to remember they were big on "helicoptering" people they disagreed with.
Which is why it's called the "paradox of tolerance".
There is no way you will ever convince me, that limiting speech somehow prevents limiting speech. It's a fucking absurd thing to suggest, it is definitionally paradoxical.
The paradox of tolerance is the exact reason why I don't like unlimited free speech, and as a minority (although I don't really feel like one all that much, but I am) it has really changed my...
The paradox of tolerance is the exact reason why I don't like unlimited free speech, and as a minority (although I don't really feel like one all that much, but I am) it has really changed my worldview. Until recently I was very open and tolerant of literally anybody, not really questioning the fact that... Wait up! Why would I want to tolerate someone who would want to kill me? So now I tolerate the tolerant :)
I'm not going to argue it. I think we already know very well that you and I don't have the same views on the topic, and I'm sure that neither of us is going to change our mind.
I'm not going to argue it. I think we already know very well that you and I don't have the same views on the topic, and I'm sure that neither of us is going to change our mind.
As you succinctly identify, your entire speech views hinge on the following cornerstone: If that foundation falls away, your whole speech views crumble due to the implications. In short: Speaking...
As you succinctly identify, your entire speech views hinge on the following cornerstone:
It's not possible to use speech alone to eliminate speech, only to discourage/debate/refute it and advocate for actions that do limit speech. The description of this paradox conflates advocacy and action.
If that foundation falls away, your whole speech views crumble due to the implications.
In short:
Speaking is an action. Advocacy always has an element of action.
It is possible to use speech to eliminate other speech.
Example A: I have a thought. Freedom of thought is absolute. No-one can practically interfere with my thought. My thought exists within my head. Thoughs are passive. Once I choose to speak my thought in some manner or other, I'm taking that passive thought and actively transmitting it through some mode of communication. I'm performing an action.
This means that the First amendment's necessary distinction between speech and action is indefensible. Speech is not passive and always has an associated action.
Example B: I can follow someone around saying "He's a scammer. He scammed me. He will ruin your life." over and over and over again and my speech will have real consequences on his life. My speaking in such a way seriously affects his voice and ability to speak freely. I can do the exact same thing online.
Example C: I can literally speak more loudly than someone so their speech can't be heard. I can speak so much more than someone else that their speech drowns.
We've proven speech can effectively silence other speech.
Since we've demonstrated that speech is both an action and that speech can silence other speech, it follows that speech must exist on an equilibrium:
The maximum amount of speech doesn't make speech the most free (as we demonstrated above). Therefore, some limits on speech necessarily have to make expression freer overall.
Therefore it also follows that there are limits on speech that must restrict speech less than not having any restrictions at all. There's an equilibrium one has to regulate to strive towards.
You can limit speech and in so doing make speech less limited overall than if you allow absolutely everything.
Where hate speech falls on that equilibrium, and a cost/benefit analysis of allowing it is a completely different subject altogether.
These are formal, logical arguments. They're not my own or unique in any way. They're the reasoning that underpin all legal systems and societies in the world.
Finding logically defensible flaws or counterarguments would lead to publications in very prestigious journals.
I don't expect to change your mind. I know you have different views and I respect that. I just can't manage to couple them with how I experience the world.
I've also spoken to a lot of people who think they have similar views to you, but when pressed, everyone I've spoken to has acknowledged a host of speech exceptions that don't align with their principles.
For me the question then becomes: is reality wrong, or are the speech principles just not compatible with the complexity of speech in practice?
Do you believe words cannot hurt? I believe that civility is important to stimulate "free speech", meaning the right to express an opinion. Being an asshole and calling people names adds nothing...
Do you believe words cannot hurt?
I believe that civility is important to stimulate "free speech", meaning the right to express an opinion. Being an asshole and calling people names adds nothing of value and discourages people from expressing their opinion, thereby reducing the potential for people expressing their opinion. Banning hate speech and similar therefore does not harm free speech.
This is of course only applicable on a private level, on a legal level all speech should be allowed if there are no threats involved.
How though? What is the difference between getting depressed from verbal bullying or having your leg broken? Both have a real, physical impact. Not entirely. Society has some moral guidelines for...
words can definitely hurt your feelings; but they are clearly different from action.
How though? What is the difference between getting depressed from verbal bullying or having your leg broken? Both have a real, physical impact.
Being an asshole is subjective
Not entirely. Society has some moral guidelines for being a "good" person. Hurting other people makes you a bad person (in most cases). Bad persons are probably assholes. I'm pretty sure here on Tildes we have decided that calling people names and other ad hominems makes you an asshole. Using the word asshole is fine, some people are assholes, but I can't call you an asshole (and I don't think you are one either :) ).
Discouragement is not the same as restriction.
Not technically, but can be in practice.
unless you contend that racist or hateful opinions are not opinions at all.
They are opinions, but they are almost always expressed in a way that hurt people or incentivises the removal of other people's right to free speech or to take part in a community. They therefore cannot be allowed.
Can you describe in more depth what this theoretical system looks like? Because even in tildes case, if you are reasonably active there is still a high probability that you will see a reply to one...
In the case of online discussions, if the forum is well designed I can make your verbal bullying disappear from my view
Can you describe in more depth what this theoretical system looks like? Because even in tildes case, if you are reasonably active there is still a high probability that you will see a reply to one of your posts and this is not entirely unavoidable. People can still be harassed, and therefore hurt by speech.
I'm not at all trying to suggest that people should have to put up with verbal abuse or harassment, only that they have no right to shut up anyone else in the service of doing so.
Are you saying you fundamentally disagree with restraining orders? By definition they limit the speech of the person being restrained.
What if the person you hurt, hurts others?
While some people in society laud on vigilante justice, for the most part people agree that solving the problem without hurting others is vastly superior to the alternative. This is perhaps the most common dilemma explored in super hero media.
But anyone can reply to any comment. I'm confused here. A restraining order is only active in the state it is issued. What are you arguing here? There's a huge difference between killing a person...
If you need to be so coddled you can limit your experience to people you trust and people they vouch for.
But anyone can reply to any comment.
I am not all that familiar with restraining orders applied to speech tbh; in general I fundamentally agree with state authority though so probably yes
I'm confused here. A restraining order is only active in the state it is issued. What are you arguing here?
even I would be quite tempted to kill a hitler with as much as I abhor violence.
There's a huge difference between killing a person and suppressing their speech in some fashion. This is not a fair comparison.
How does this system work then? How can you not see replies? So you do not agree with restraining orders? You were the one talking about hurting people. I simply pointed out that vigilante justice...
Doesn't mean you have to see/look at it. We're talking about a theoretical system remember
How does this system work then? How can you not see replies?
When I say State I mean government in general, I am a voluntarist/anarchist who does not believe in the legitimacy of political authority.
So you do not agree with restraining orders?
You were talking about hurting people. Did you mean emotionally?
You were the one talking about hurting people. I simply pointed out that vigilante justice is not considered better than being a civil person and not harming the other party.
This was in the context of using hate speech against a group you believe is doing harm to society.
Comparing this to "I would kill hitler" is unfair.
The issue isn't black and white rather shades of gray. Civility is a hot topic right now but behavior and language are part of this discussion. When you call someone an asshole it is often in...
The issue isn't black and white rather shades of gray. Civility is a hot topic right now but behavior and language are part of this discussion. When you call someone an asshole it is often in response to uncivil dialogue, a lack of respect when addressing a person or due to thoughtless behavior all of which escalates into emotional responses which is a well-worn tool of trolls used as a destructive force rather than constructive.
Being an asshole is subjective
Extend that to the free part of free speech. Defamation cases are subjective and why they end up in court for a determination but demonstrates that speech can harm, opinions can harm in a full-throated legal sense. The very fact that certain types of speech, opinions can be tried by a court that can award damages means there are limits to free speech or suffer consequences.
There are vast disparages in online cultures. I don't visit 4chan or Voat as their cultures are not ones I wish to participate in. They are free in that space. This space is free to create its own culture, which includes more civil engagement. If anyone finds it too limiting, then they are free to express that as you have; however, I respectfully disagree with you.
There is: Reddit calls it 'block user'. If I don't like what you have to say on Reddit, I can simply block you and never again see anything you post or write on that site. Is that the solution...
I really think there is a technological solution to this problem and that I'm well on the path to solving it.
There is: Reddit calls it 'block user'. If I don't like what you have to say on Reddit, I can simply block you and never again see anything you post or write on that site.
Is that the solution you're imagining - just hiding offensive speech from the delicate souls who can't deal with it?
How is that likely to work? Would a person filter by user, or by keywords? If I don't want to see the words "faggot" or "poofter", can you hide them from me everywhere across your website, so that...
Essentially yes, make it easier for end consumers to find or exclude whatever they like.
How is that likely to work? Would a person filter by user, or by keywords? If I don't want to see the words "faggot" or "poofter", can you hide them from me everywhere across your website, so that my delicate sensitivities remain undamaged? Or do I have to wait for someone to call for the exile of all AIDS-infested faggots to an island where we can fuck ourselves to death before I can filter that user's comments from my view?
It's your website, not mine. It's not up to me whether you have moderators on your website. I'm trying to understand how this exclusion feature of yours will work on your website. You're saying...
If you like your moderators you can keep them.
It's your website, not mine. It's not up to me whether you have moderators on your website. I'm trying to understand how this exclusion feature of yours will work on your website. You're saying that it will be easier for "end consumers to find or exclude whatever they like" on your website.
Okay. How would I, as a hypothetical userend consumer on your website, be able to exclude slurs and hate speech from my reading experienceconsumption of content, so that my delicate sensitivities are protected from offence, while still allowing people on your website to call for my death?
FTSOF. Absolutely none of that answers my very simple and direct question. Stop treating me like a developer, and treat me like I don't know what you're talking about (which isn't far from the...
FTSOF. Absolutely none of that answers my very simple and direct question. Stop treating me like a developer, and treat me like I don't know what you're talking about (which isn't far from the truth!).
Try giving a direct answer to a direct question.
How do I stop seeing comments that say "all faggots should die from AIDS" on your website? You will allow this expression of free speech on your website, but you say that I can exclude it. How do I exclude this hate speech from my experience on your website?
These comments can pop up anywhere, as you well know. Well, why didn't you just say so in the first place? <sigh> "I don't know how it will work yet. The website is still a work in progress."
Stick to viewing communities on notabug that do not allow that content. Same as you would on reddit.
These comments can pop up anywhere, as you well know.
The community layer hasn't been built yet
Well, why didn't you just say so in the first place? <sigh> "I don't know how it will work yet. The website is still a work in progress."
I'm not sure how you define free speech, but the sort of hurtful speech I think people are more worried about is along the lines of: "Ms. Elementary School Teacher is a secret child molester and...
I'm not sure how you define free speech, but the sort of hurtful speech I think people are more worried about is along the lines of: "Ms. Elementary School Teacher is a secret child molester and lives at 123 Fake Street in Anytown, USA" as opposed to whether or not someone is a ginger. I say this as a fellow ginger.
Possibly, but libel and slander laws are a limit on absolutely unrestricted speech and only apply if the allegation is untrue. More to the point, from the perspective of the person owning the...
Possibly, but libel and slander laws are a limit on absolutely unrestricted speech and only apply if the allegation is untrue. More to the point, from the perspective of the person owning the website, there's no way to distinguish between the following scenarios:
These are true allegations that have been proven in the courts.
These are true allegations that have not been brought before the courts.
These are true allegations that have been brought before the courts and rejected for some reason (i.e. miscarriage of justice).
These are false allegations but the accuser believes them to be true in good faith (this would include the alternate miscarriage of justice, where an innocent person has been convicted unjustly).
These are false allegations but the accuser believes them to be true due to mental illness.
These are false allegations and the accuser is presenting them knowing they are false.
These scenarios also don't address the issue of presenting the home address, which could also be true or false, and, if false, presented as true for a variety of reasons (i.e. flawed research, acting in bad faith, etc).
Those subs are not default though? They could seperate Popular and r/all like it was before if they're hell bent on doing this and just not include non-default subs in Popular. I think they just...
Those subs are not default though? They could seperate Popular and r/all like it was before if they're hell bent on doing this and just not include non-default subs in Popular.
I think they just prefer the power to silence users, if they prefer. Like they have with Twitter and Facebook.
That particular sub doesn't even exist anymore, but that's the kind of content advertisers want to stay far, far away from. Ads show up next to any subreddit, and so for example someone could get...
That particular sub doesn't even exist anymore, but that's the kind of content advertisers want to stay far, far away from. Ads show up next to any subreddit, and so for example someone could get a screen grab of a Coca Cola advertisement next to a post advocating genocide and start a boycott. That's a huge headache for both Reddit and Coca Cola and it seems like they're just opting to completely avoid it.
Actually, there’s an entire subreddit dedicated to that: r/stopadvertising, which tries to put pressure on advertisers who put their ads in hate subreddits.
Actually, there’s an entire subreddit dedicated to that: r/stopadvertising, which tries to put pressure on advertisers who put their ads in hate subreddits.
We are the product to exploit. How long before advertising to individuals occurs, finding your inbox and profile with ads based on your 'interests' by way of the holy grail algos sifting through...
We are the product to exploit. How long before advertising to individuals occurs, finding your inbox and profile with ads based on your 'interests' by way of the holy grail algos sifting through your content to discover that? How about extending that your off site email account based on your 'interests' on Reddit. Oh the possibilities!! The drool must be epic.
Well, it had a good run. I just wish Facebook could die as well. IMO social media sites reach their peak after a couple of years and then continually go downhill. The simplest solution then is to...
Well, it had a good run. I just wish Facebook could die as well. IMO social media sites reach their peak after a couple of years and then continually go downhill. The simplest solution then is to only have each site around for a few years.
It's a simple solution, but I'm not sure it's a satisfying one because it presents another problem. I'm lazy and I'd rather not have to shift communities every 2-3 years because of capitalistic...
It's a simple solution, but I'm not sure it's a satisfying one because it presents another problem. I'm lazy and I'd rather not have to shift communities every 2-3 years because of capitalistic bloat.
This one is flawed too, but maybe get governments or some decentralized organizations to subsidize discussion/community oriented sites like Reddit and Facebook so they don't turn into a mess to begin with. If these companies didn't have to worry about making a profit and meeting expectations of investors, then this wouldn't need to be an issue.
Without hosting pictures and videos, without doing anything too fancy (like what tildes is doing) I feel it should be possible to have many non-profit discussion-oriented sites ran through...
Without hosting pictures and videos, without doing anything too fancy (like what tildes is doing) I feel it should be possible to have many non-profit discussion-oriented sites ran through patronage alone. If the software remains relatively static then maintenance would be low. You'd pretty much only have to worry about the cost of hosting the site. IRC-ify reddit.
I'm... not sure. I haven't had gold in a very long time. It depends on the subreddit, though. Right now, logged in with adblock enabled, I'm seeing sponsored posts on /politics, /worldnews, /aww,...
I'm... not sure. I haven't had gold in a very long time.
It depends on the subreddit, though. Right now, logged in with adblock enabled, I'm seeing sponsored posts on /politics, /worldnews, /aww, /science, /books, /cooking... all the popular high-profile subs, really. Also some but not all smaller ones, like /r/notebooks, which has all of 26k subscribers.
Only seeing four ads - predominantly one for some shitty ISP that isn't even in my area, AFAIK, one for Pokemon Go, one for some IBM coding challenge thingy, and one for... coding bootcamp. But I've got Reddit in a private Firefox window and am behind a cookie-blocking firewall, so the terrible targeting is in some sense a feature, not a bug. :)
I don't see anything right now on any of the LGBT-related subs I read, but there have been sponsored posts there in the past. Earlier in the year there was some Amazon affiliate targeting them, and their targeting algorithms got severely derped, so they were advertising, like, bear-pride pins to lesbians, asexual-pride pins to gays, bisexual-pride pins to the asexual sub...
I'm not entirely sure why I don't see those. I'm using ublock origin and RES, but I tried without either, and I'm still not getting them. It might be that I've turned off all the options here:...
I'm not entirely sure why I don't see those. I'm using ublock origin and RES, but I tried without either, and I'm still not getting them.
No gold atm, though I did previously have it and when it was in effect I did click the "no ads" box. As I previously mentioned, not using the redesign. Though I did test it out and it didn't seem...
No gold atm, though I did previously have it and when it was in effect I did click the "no ads" box. As I previously mentioned, not using the redesign. Though I did test it out and it didn't seem to show me any sponsored posts. Not sure what to make of that. I was only testing the redesign on /r/politics.
Rather odd - I turned off hide ads and went to new.reddit.com/r/all and also didn’t get any promoted posts. Oh well, if reddit insists on wasting their adspace like this, I’m not complaining!
Rather odd - I turned off hide ads and went to new.reddit.com/r/all and also didn’t get any promoted posts. Oh well, if reddit insists on wasting their adspace like this, I’m not complaining!
That's really bizarre. I don't know what to think about reddit's code anymore. Is this just it being janky, or is there some other reason? I feel like now that they've gone full evil, maybe...
That's really bizarre. I don't know what to think about reddit's code anymore. Is this just it being janky, or is there some other reason?
I feel like now that they've gone full evil, maybe they're trying to prevent outrage from their core userbase and maybe they've disabled certain features for "legacy accounts" or something like that.
Who knows. Their source code is fully closed now. The programmers are no longer in control of the show; they're fully beholden to the corporate shareholders now.
I will probably still use reddit even after all these changes. Hopefully, like before, the worst parts of reddit are easy to ignore and the discussions that I care about (usually in niche...
I will probably still use reddit even after all these changes. Hopefully, like before, the worst parts of reddit are easy to ignore and the discussions that I care about (usually in niche subreddits relevant to my interests) will be left alone. However, I say that as somebody who blocks ads aggressively and haven't seen any ads or promoted posts on reddit ever.
The quiet little places where the quality lives will be unaffected. Most users can even avoid it all entirely with old.reddit.com and RES. uMatrix is sufficient to block all new design elements...
The quiet little places where the quality lives will be unaffected. Most users can even avoid it all entirely with old.reddit.com and RES. uMatrix is sufficient to block all new design elements and tracking scripts.
What will light the fire that burns them down is the inevitable day they tombstone old.reddit.com and all 3rd-party extensions, attempting to bottle reddit entirely into an 'official' interface that they can control and use for tracking and advertising - and that day is coming, I'll bet within 3 years.
Most of the people who consume the fluff there won't notice or care - until the people creating and submitting all of that content leave for greener pastures where they don't have to compete with false rankings, privacy concerns, hate speech, and blatant advertising. Once they drive away the submitters with that crap, the site will collapse from a lack of good (even by fluff standards) content. They'll implement an army of bots to try and automate the aggregation, and that'll likely alienate the rest of the userbase, since the best bots can do is recycle day-old content from other more interesting sites.
They'll burn up the rest of their cash, fail to get returns for their investors, and go bust. I'm curious who will step in to buy up all the pieces of the reddit portfolio when that happens.
RIP reddit. I love you and I will never forget what you once represented. Going to be hard to watch her struggle before her last breath, but thats the wheel of birth and death.
RIP reddit. I love you and I will never forget what you once represented. Going to be hard to watch her struggle before her last breath, but thats the wheel of birth and death.
Ho. ly. Fuck.
I knew Reddit was transitioning to becoming an advertising platform, but this is taking things to whole new level. Companies owning user profiles? Company employees acting as moderators and banning people? Ha. They're going to have to remove the "thou shalt not moderate for financial gain" clause from their User Agreement!
And we all knew that celebrities use AMAs to promote something, but now they can be paid for and not even identified as advertising.
I've been giving Reddit the benefit of the doubt, but no longer. They're selling out, pure and simple.
It's ironic considering that what made AMAs insanely popular was the fact they were unscripted, informal, and really could go either way depending on the interaction with Redditors.
Now they're absolutely not different from any other sort of fan Q&A on the net. You can feel it, too... Just go back and reread old AMAs and you'll be amazed how sanitized they've now become. I think PR agents saw Woody Harrelson and Morgan Freeman as cautionary tales, while they were, in their own ways, a direct consequence of why AMAs were so great.
Not only that, but AMAs originally had absolutely nothing to do with notoriety. It had to do with the the freedom of actually asking people anything. The slogan they still use is a relic from a time when that subreddit had a completely different purpose: "where the mundane becomes fascinating and the outrageous suddenly seems normal." It was about the lives of everyday people, and the freedom of asking them anything.
But it turned into celebrities and promotion and we're at a point now where most people don't even remember what it was originally for.
On the other side of things, companies understand reddit better now and we get stuff like the Blue Man Group's AMA which was absolutely amazing.
It feels so weird for me because I have been on reddit pretty much my entire adult life. From 2007ish-now, this spans high school and college for me. It blows my mind how much of a 180 the site has done. Their original goals were very similar to how ~ is currently operating. I know its the rule of online communities that they degrade in quality given enough time but it's tough to say goodbye to a place that I have been apart of during my most formative years.
But regardless of my personal feelings, those numbers are absolutely mind blowing and I can't believe they held from selling out as long as they did:
It sucks but I can not blame them, that is so much money that they are not taking advantage of. Like I mentioned, they held out a surprisingly long time. Considering how much more functionality there is to Reddit vs. Twitter, I can only imagine they will make a killing. The only thing that really sucks is how they aren't even addressing the fact that they are betraying their core user base.
They were mostly able to hold out because they hadn't taken any significant investments and there weren't really any expectations to make the company worth a massive amount of money. Then they took $50M in September 2014 from venture capitalists, and then $200M more just under a year ago. Now there's extreme pressure to start making the company worth the kind of valuation that those investors expect.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair
The vast majority of the user base don't care, they just want to look at cute animals and memes.
I mainly spend my time on /r/nba, and have found over the last year the twitter diaspora is crazy. /r/nba is literally the most active sub on reddit at times, sometimes even during their offseason. Only really battling with /r/askreddit for activity a lot of the time. A place for you to check
The tone of posts has changed so, so much over the last year it's kinda shocking. I've started to RES tag as many bots as I can, and I'm finding almost all the major posts are posted by them. Almost all the top comments are populated by easy memes and the same group of people "grinding it out" in the new section of the subreddit.
Granted, all of these things have existed on Reddit for a long time. Bots, and astroturfing, and vote manipulation have been prevalent for as long as the site has existed.. Maybe it's just me starting to notice it more.
There's a conspiratorial part of me that's thinking: a lot of major corporations are noticing that popularity on reddit means tangible results in their busines. It would take next to no resources to get 20-50 people to "spin" your story on reddit by elevating your position and downvoting the rest into obscurity.
I'm so glad I'm not the only person to notice this. It's been really frustrating lately (past year or so) to read any comments on any thread on reddit. I was just noticing this morning that I was getting upset/worked up over some issue that has absolutely no relevance to me other than I saw the reddit post.
Everyone seems so hostile and combative over every little thing.
As an aside, I used to think I could trust most posts on reddit to be non-paid, non-promotional posts. Now, it's hard to take any post at face value over there.
Aaron had very little to do with reddit. He was basically forced to merge his company with reddit because the site he was working on (Infogami) was failing, and he only worked at the merged company for a few months. He wasn't even working on reddit a lot of the time he was there, he was still working on Infogami (and some code shared between both). Then reddit was acquired, he stopped showing up to work shortly after, and got fired.
He was an amazing guy in many ways and accomplished a lot, but reddit isn't really one of the things he should get much credit for.
Aaron didn't help develop Markdown, but he was one of the earliest people to "get" Markdown. Most of Gruber's other friends politely passed on providing feedback, reasoning "but why wouldn't I just write HTML?"
Gruber once described Aaron as his "muse" for Markdown and Aaron's feedback was instrumental at a time when the Markdown spec was still forming and Gruber wasn't getting much feedback from other sources. But ultimately it's Gruber's baby, it was his idea, he defined it, he wrote the original parser.
WRT?
I think (like @go1dfish says in reply to my comment) it was mostly Paul Graham's. It's not a coincidence that Hacker News is extremely similar to early reddit—Paul Graham created it too.
Steve and Alexis applied to YCombinator with a completely different idea (some sort of mobile food-ordering thing), got rejected, and Paul told them they could be in if they built his idea instead. I don't think either of them has much investment in the concept of reddit itself, only the fact that it's successful.
That's the feeling I got as well. When all the old guard admins that helped build the site start leaving, you know the site is going in the wrong direction. When obvious spammers became "content creators" and were left to mods or bots like the sentinel, it showed that advertising was their only future end game.
Also in the source article, the emphasis is mine:
Does this mean that they don't have to label such promoted stuff as ads in jurisdictions where this kind of labelling is not required?
If companies are treated as legal persons, why shouldn't they have brand pages? /sarcasm
With all due respect, you are overreacting.
While you & I may not like it, Reddit has always been a for profit tech startup, which means user growth first and then greed.
Advertising will be fairly obvious. Any AMA on a brand page will still be readily identifiable as a corporate plug.
And the users are naturally revolting, which should limit the use of dark patterns.
See exhibit A: https://www.reddit.com/user/audisportusa/comments/8lmwih/im_actresshostinternet_lover_liza_koshy_and_im/dzjbgzp/
This does not mean subreddits, far as I can tell, only user profile pages. The example in the article is from https: //www.reddit.com/user/audisportusa/. I feel like this is an important distinction to note, though I'm not saying I support what reddit's doing.
Well yeah, Reddit now allows you to post to your profile, which you can freely moderate. Which was obviously implemented specifically for this purpose.
Seems like it's just formalizing what has already been going on for years - companies have hired PR firms to control the narrative on websites that have content associated with them. Plenty of subreddits are effected by companies and even advocacy groups such that they effectively control the discussion.
At the end of the day, they rely on advertising? This is ridiculous, sure a few ads here and there and per-subreddit are okay because they're more relevant. But relying on ads? When you have Reddit Gold, a decent way to get people to pay up? If Reddit is user-focused, they would allow users to pay for the servers and mods and the development and ops time directly; just like with Reddit Gold.
The discussion on Hacker News isn't too bad either: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17468840
link to that comment
The core of the issue is that reddit's goal isn't "become sustainable". Now that they've taken a bunch of venture capital recently, the goal is more like "reach $15B+ valuation and get acquired or IPO", because that's the only outcome that VCs want.
Reddit gold doesn't bring in anywhere near enough money to get a valuation like that, and it never will. I know this very well, because I worked at reddit as the "gold engineer". Heavy advertising and other similar approaches are the only options reddit has for their goal now, and they know this—it's why they're hiring hundreds of ad sales and data people, while gold has been neglected and only had features taken away from it for years.
I believe it's absolutely possible for a reddit-like site to operate sustainably on a gold-like model, but because of some of the decisions they've made, it's no longer possible for reddit itself to be that site. I'm hoping Tildes will be it.
That makes sense; they've tied themselves to the unsustainable imperialist growth model. The more I look at tech, the more I see the imperialist empire model. What's wrong with pissing off a bunch of people and actively harming them in order to satisfy the investors and the secondary investors, the advertisers?
Here's hoping Tildes can manage it! :D
The what now? Please explain :)
I'm not SourceContribute, but my take on this is that it's about the underlying assumption at the base of capitalism: grow or die. It's not enough to just be good at what you do, and earn the same profit this year as last year, and keep ticking over year after year. You have to earn more this year than last year, and even more next year. That means you need to keep growing your business. You can't just run one shop or one site. You have to open a second shop or expand your userbase. You need to out-compete the shop down the street or the other website. You need to poach their customers or their users. In the best world, you need to kill off your competitors to gain their marketshare. Grow or die.
It's wrong, of course. There's nothing wrong with simply running a business that makes the same profit year after year (adjusted for inflation and such things). Some people live long and happy lives that way. But capitalism as a worldview seems to be based on this "grow or die" assumption.
That leads to an imperialist growth model: where you have to keep growing or die. Only the fittest shall survive.
It's worth noting that grow or die associates with empires and corporations for the same reasons. Both become stronger because of the resources they acquire by bringing in new stakeholders, and both are forced to continue that growth in order to keep pleasing their stakeholders.
And inevitably crumple as it cannot grow beyond a certain point, yes?
We'll have to see. We have that kind of historical hindsight on empires now, but corporations are still in full swing.
Thanks for explaining - and explaining it well at that :)
No kidding though. For a couple of years after the 2008 crisis, it seemed like the politicians talked about nothing but growth, growth, growth...
Our politicians are still talking about "jobs and growth"!
Essentially, for startups they're driven by growth. If you can't show a hockey-stick curve in a graph somewhere, you're doing something wrong. You need to scale up as fast and as large as possible. This differs from the usual small business which is driven by profits. VC/Venture Capital directly contributes to the growth model of startups. For larger companies, the equivalent would be burning through cash to acquire (or merge) with companies based on their growth (especially their user base growth).
The reason I put imperialist is because it's following the imperialist model which meant acquiring new resources and territories. The idea got into my head thanks to the book Software, Infrastructure, Labor.
There's a section in the book that speaks about software companies as if they were imperialist outposts and you can see how well this analogy works. The office has a hierarchy, it has a bureaucracy and it's all in the service of getting profits for the far-away investors who may visit once in a while. The users aren't customers so much as they are the population that will be used in the extraction of profits, usually through the collection and sale of their data. The workers are subject populations as well, having to pay attention to the bureaucratic laws of the empire and pay tribute to the governor of the region.
The imperialism analogy is fairly strong but I admit it does break down at some points; it's still useful however when thinking about the impact of software companies and how Big Tech is building empires.
Sonofabitch. I wondered why I was having such a hard time pulling up really old threads from the listentothis archives. We flair-tag everything important so it used to show up no problem in reddit search, now I can only find those old posts by using google.
Yeah I feel like they could have made it with a paying model. I would pay like $5 per year for a good, independent reddit.
That's the thing, I would love for more sites to have low cost subscription options like that. Sure, it would take a decent number of people subscribing to support development and Infrastructure costs, but for a link aggregation and discussion site, I would imagine an optimized site wouldn't require a lot of infrastructure per user (~ for example).
It's true.
https://old.reddit.com/'s robots.txt is this:
It's because tildes takes a stand against hate speech that there'll be a free and open ability to post here for as many people as possible.
Intentionally intimidating and scaring people away by intentionally being a dick limits free speech in practice much more than the alternative.
Yup. If you want an example, just look at TrueReddit. Completely unmoderated subreddit with the stated purpose of discussion of insightful articles. It's got a whopping half a million subscribers, but if you only looked at the comment sections you'd never guess. Sub's about as active as one 1/10th the size because the comments sections these days almost universally consist of flamewars of nazis and alt right versus everyone else, which is extremely offputting to say the least.
The intense free speech advocates always seem to overlook things like this, I actually agree with the philosophy itself but when it comes to online communities once you get enough people together "true" free speech always devolves into chaos and literal nazism. I'd blame the inherit nature of the medium being disconnected from reality, and also "small" in the sense that many more people are reading / commenting in each topic than in a physical space. If some guy is standing on the street corner advocating the genocide of brown people I can go somewhere else, but one guy is more than capable of spamming every single thread with hateful rhetoric. Your voice carries a lot farther online.
Ah, but speech isn't action! Just saying you want to kill people isn't the same as actually killing them. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me." So, we should let those people talk about genocide and oppression and hatred... because they're not actually KILLING anyone, are they? Just saying you want to murder someone can't hurt them... can it?
/s
I assume you're making some relevant and intelligent point, but it escapes me.
From a piece of fiction performed on stage? Not very many, I would assume. It's not like that was part of a speech given by a political leader or other high-profile person, actually exhorting people to kill all
JewsblacksMuslimslawyers.I reckon that while some don't understand (and maybe some would eventually agree that some speech should be limited), many are advocates of free speech because they want to keep the ability to harass and malign those they disagree with existing in public spaces. So, they couch their deplorable views in free speech issues while they really mean "freedom to say whatever mean thing I want to people I don't like". Which is reason enough, as you point out, to limit speech.
I wasn't super active on Reddit during the Physical_Removal debacle (aside from creating the parody subreddit Digital_Removal), but weren't they advocating killing people for their beliefs in a manner that goes past the notion of "I don't like X, they should all die"?
I seem to remember they were big on "helicoptering" people they disagreed with.
Which is why it's called the "paradox of tolerance".
The paradox of tolerance is the exact reason why I don't like unlimited free speech, and as a minority (although I don't really feel like one all that much, but I am) it has really changed my worldview. Until recently I was very open and tolerant of literally anybody, not really questioning the fact that... Wait up! Why would I want to tolerate someone who would want to kill me? So now I tolerate the tolerant :)
Anyway.
I'm not going to argue it. I think we already know very well that you and I don't have the same views on the topic, and I'm sure that neither of us is going to change our mind.
As you succinctly identify, your entire speech views hinge on the following cornerstone:
If that foundation falls away, your whole speech views crumble due to the implications.
In short:
Example A: I have a thought. Freedom of thought is absolute. No-one can practically interfere with my thought. My thought exists within my head. Thoughs are passive. Once I choose to speak my thought in some manner or other, I'm taking that passive thought and actively transmitting it through some mode of communication. I'm performing an action.
This means that the First amendment's necessary distinction between speech and action is indefensible. Speech is not passive and always has an associated action.
Example B: I can follow someone around saying "He's a scammer. He scammed me. He will ruin your life." over and over and over again and my speech will have real consequences on his life. My speaking in such a way seriously affects his voice and ability to speak freely. I can do the exact same thing online.
Example C: I can literally speak more loudly than someone so their speech can't be heard. I can speak so much more than someone else that their speech drowns.
We've proven speech can effectively silence other speech.
Since we've demonstrated that speech is both an action and that speech can silence other speech, it follows that speech must exist on an equilibrium:
The maximum amount of speech doesn't make speech the most free (as we demonstrated above). Therefore, some limits on speech necessarily have to make expression freer overall.
Therefore it also follows that there are limits on speech that must restrict speech less than not having any restrictions at all. There's an equilibrium one has to regulate to strive towards.
You can limit speech and in so doing make speech less limited overall than if you allow absolutely everything.
Where hate speech falls on that equilibrium, and a cost/benefit analysis of allowing it is a completely different subject altogether.
These are formal, logical arguments. They're not my own or unique in any way. They're the reasoning that underpin all legal systems and societies in the world.
Finding logically defensible flaws or counterarguments would lead to publications in very prestigious journals.
I don't expect to change your mind. I know you have different views and I respect that. I just can't manage to couple them with how I experience the world.
I've also spoken to a lot of people who think they have similar views to you, but when pressed, everyone I've spoken to has acknowledged a host of speech exceptions that don't align with their principles.
For me the question then becomes: is reality wrong, or are the speech principles just not compatible with the complexity of speech in practice?
Do you believe words cannot hurt?
I believe that civility is important to stimulate "free speech", meaning the right to express an opinion. Being an asshole and calling people names adds nothing of value and discourages people from expressing their opinion, thereby reducing the potential for people expressing their opinion. Banning hate speech and similar therefore does not harm free speech.
This is of course only applicable on a private level, on a legal level all speech should be allowed if there are no threats involved.
How though? What is the difference between getting depressed from verbal bullying or having your leg broken? Both have a real, physical impact.
Not entirely. Society has some moral guidelines for being a "good" person. Hurting other people makes you a bad person (in most cases). Bad persons are probably assholes. I'm pretty sure here on Tildes we have decided that calling people names and other ad hominems makes you an asshole. Using the word asshole is fine, some people are assholes, but I can't call you an asshole (and I don't think you are one either :) ).
Not technically, but can be in practice.
They are opinions, but they are almost always expressed in a way that hurt people or incentivises the removal of other people's right to free speech or to take part in a community. They therefore cannot be allowed.
I always find that this helps to clarify the "free speech" issue:
https://xkcd.com/1357/
Can you describe in more depth what this theoretical system looks like? Because even in tildes case, if you are reasonably active there is still a high probability that you will see a reply to one of your posts and this is not entirely unavoidable. People can still be harassed, and therefore hurt by speech.
Are you saying you fundamentally disagree with restraining orders? By definition they limit the speech of the person being restrained.
While some people in society laud on vigilante justice, for the most part people agree that solving the problem without hurting others is vastly superior to the alternative. This is perhaps the most common dilemma explored in super hero media.
But anyone can reply to any comment.
I'm confused here. A restraining order is only active in the state it is issued. What are you arguing here?
There's a huge difference between killing a person and suppressing their speech in some fashion. This is not a fair comparison.
How does this system work then? How can you not see replies?
So you do not agree with restraining orders?
You were the one talking about hurting people. I simply pointed out that vigilante justice is not considered better than being a civil person and not harming the other party.
This was in the context of using hate speech against a group you believe is doing harm to society.
Comparing this to "I would kill hitler" is unfair.
The issue isn't black and white rather shades of gray. Civility is a hot topic right now but behavior and language are part of this discussion. When you call someone an asshole it is often in response to uncivil dialogue, a lack of respect when addressing a person or due to thoughtless behavior all of which escalates into emotional responses which is a well-worn tool of trolls used as a destructive force rather than constructive.
Extend that to the free part of free speech. Defamation cases are subjective and why they end up in court for a determination but demonstrates that speech can harm, opinions can harm in a full-throated legal sense. The very fact that certain types of speech, opinions can be tried by a court that can award damages means there are limits to free speech or suffer consequences.
There are vast disparages in online cultures. I don't visit 4chan or Voat as their cultures are not ones I wish to participate in. They are free in that space. This space is free to create its own culture, which includes more civil engagement. If anyone finds it too limiting, then they are free to express that as you have; however, I respectfully disagree with you.
There is: Reddit calls it 'block user'. If I don't like what you have to say on Reddit, I can simply block you and never again see anything you post or write on that site.
Is that the solution you're imagining - just hiding offensive speech from the delicate souls who can't deal with it?
How is that likely to work? Would a person filter by user, or by keywords? If I don't want to see the words "faggot" or "poofter", can you hide them from me everywhere across your website, so that my delicate sensitivities remain undamaged? Or do I have to wait for someone to call for the exile of all AIDS-infested faggots to an island where we can fuck ourselves to death before I can filter that user's comments from my view?
It's your website, not mine. It's not up to me whether you have moderators on your website. I'm trying to understand how this exclusion feature of yours will work on your website. You're saying that it will be easier for "end consumers to find or exclude whatever they like" on your website.
Okay. How would I, as a hypothetical
userend consumer on your website, be able to exclude slurs and hate speech from myreading experienceconsumption of content, so that my delicate sensitivities are protected from offence, while still allowing people on your website to call for my death?FTSOF. Absolutely none of that answers my very simple and direct question. Stop treating me like a developer, and treat me like I don't know what you're talking about (which isn't far from the truth!).
Try giving a direct answer to a direct question.
How do I stop seeing comments that say "all faggots should die from AIDS" on your website? You will allow this expression of free speech on your website, but you say that I can exclude it. How do I exclude this hate speech from my experience on your website?
These comments can pop up anywhere, as you well know.
Well, why didn't you just say so in the first place? <sigh> "I don't know how it will work yet. The website is still a work in progress."
I'm not sure how you define free speech, but the sort of hurtful speech I think people are more worried about is along the lines of: "Ms. Elementary School Teacher is a secret child molester and lives at 123 Fake Street in Anytown, USA" as opposed to whether or not someone is a ginger. I say this as a fellow ginger.
At that point it becomes libel or slander.
Possibly, but libel and slander laws are a limit on absolutely unrestricted speech and only apply if the allegation is untrue. More to the point, from the perspective of the person owning the website, there's no way to distinguish between the following scenarios:
These scenarios also don't address the issue of presenting the home address, which could also be true or false, and, if false, presented as true for a variety of reasons (i.e. flawed research, acting in bad faith, etc).
The lack of commercialisation is one of the reasons I use reddit.
With a heavy heart I'm preparing to leave the ship.
They’re scared by free speech? Why?
Nobody wants their ad showing up next to a post on r/coontown
Those subs are not default though? They could seperate Popular and r/all like it was before if they're hell bent on doing this and just not include non-default subs in Popular.
I think they just prefer the power to silence users, if they prefer. Like they have with Twitter and Facebook.
That particular sub doesn't even exist anymore, but that's the kind of content advertisers want to stay far, far away from. Ads show up next to any subreddit, and so for example someone could get a screen grab of a Coca Cola advertisement next to a post advocating genocide and start a boycott. That's a huge headache for both Reddit and Coca Cola and it seems like they're just opting to completely avoid it.
Actually, there’s an entire subreddit dedicated to that: r/stopadvertising, which tries to put pressure on advertisers who put their ads in hate subreddits.
We are the product to exploit. How long before advertising to individuals occurs, finding your inbox and profile with ads based on your 'interests' by way of the holy grail algos sifting through your content to discover that? How about extending that your off site email account based on your 'interests' on Reddit. Oh the possibilities!! The drool must be epic.
Well, it had a good run. I just wish Facebook could die as well. IMO social media sites reach their peak after a couple of years and then continually go downhill. The simplest solution then is to only have each site around for a few years.
It's a simple solution, but I'm not sure it's a satisfying one because it presents another problem. I'm lazy and I'd rather not have to shift communities every 2-3 years because of capitalistic bloat.
This one is flawed too, but maybe get governments or some decentralized organizations to subsidize discussion/community oriented sites like Reddit and Facebook so they don't turn into a mess to begin with. If these companies didn't have to worry about making a profit and meeting expectations of investors, then this wouldn't need to be an issue.
Without hosting pictures and videos, without doing anything too fancy (like what tildes is doing) I feel it should be possible to have many non-profit discussion-oriented sites ran through patronage alone. If the software remains relatively static then maintenance would be low. You'd pretty much only have to worry about the cost of hosting the site. IRC-ify reddit.
I wonder if they will try to show ads to adblock users. That would be the turning point for me.
They already do that, if you're logged in. Sponsored posts. Which are always terrible and vaguely scammy. :/
I've never seen those? Is it because I have gold from the mobile app alien blue getting killed off?
I think RES hides those
That would also explain why I'm not seeing them. I haven't turned RES off in like a decade...
I'm... not sure. I haven't had gold in a very long time.
It depends on the subreddit, though. Right now, logged in with adblock enabled, I'm seeing sponsored posts on /politics, /worldnews, /aww, /science, /books, /cooking... all the popular high-profile subs, really. Also some but not all smaller ones, like /r/notebooks, which has all of 26k subscribers.
Only seeing four ads - predominantly one for some shitty ISP that isn't even in my area, AFAIK, one for Pokemon Go, one for some IBM coding challenge thingy, and one for... coding bootcamp. But I've got Reddit in a private Firefox window and am behind a cookie-blocking firewall, so the terrible targeting is in some sense a feature, not a bug. :)
I don't see anything right now on any of the LGBT-related subs I read, but there have been sponsored posts there in the past. Earlier in the year there was some Amazon affiliate targeting them, and their targeting algorithms got severely derped, so they were advertising, like, bear-pride pins to lesbians, asexual-pride pins to gays, bisexual-pride pins to the asexual sub...
I'm not entirely sure why I don't see those. I'm using ublock origin and RES, but I tried without either, and I'm still not getting them.
It might be that I've turned off all the options here: https://www.reddit.com/personalization and I'm also not using the redesign.
Are you using the redesign?
Do you have gold?
No gold atm, though I did previously have it and when it was in effect I did click the "no ads" box. As I previously mentioned, not using the redesign. Though I did test it out and it didn't seem to show me any sponsored posts. Not sure what to make of that. I was only testing the redesign on /r/politics.
Rather odd - I turned off hide ads and went to new.reddit.com/r/all and also didn’t get any promoted posts. Oh well, if reddit insists on wasting their adspace like this, I’m not complaining!
That's really bizarre. I don't know what to think about reddit's code anymore. Is this just it being janky, or is there some other reason?
I feel like now that they've gone full evil, maybe they're trying to prevent outrage from their core userbase and maybe they've disabled certain features for "legacy accounts" or something like that.
Who knows. Their source code is fully closed now. The programmers are no longer in control of the show; they're fully beholden to the corporate shareholders now.
I will probably still use reddit even after all these changes. Hopefully, like before, the worst parts of reddit are easy to ignore and the discussions that I care about (usually in niche subreddits relevant to my interests) will be left alone. However, I say that as somebody who blocks ads aggressively and haven't seen any ads or promoted posts on reddit ever.
The quiet little places where the quality lives will be unaffected. Most users can even avoid it all entirely with old.reddit.com and RES. uMatrix is sufficient to block all new design elements and tracking scripts.
What will light the fire that burns them down is the inevitable day they tombstone old.reddit.com and all 3rd-party extensions, attempting to bottle reddit entirely into an 'official' interface that they can control and use for tracking and advertising - and that day is coming, I'll bet within 3 years.
Most of the people who consume the fluff there won't notice or care - until the people creating and submitting all of that content leave for greener pastures where they don't have to compete with false rankings, privacy concerns, hate speech, and blatant advertising. Once they drive away the submitters with that crap, the site will collapse from a lack of good (even by fluff standards) content. They'll implement an army of bots to try and automate the aggregation, and that'll likely alienate the rest of the userbase, since the best bots can do is recycle day-old content from other more interesting sites.
They'll burn up the rest of their cash, fail to get returns for their investors, and go bust. I'm curious who will step in to buy up all the pieces of the reddit portfolio when that happens.
Reddit now does a lot of tracking via Reddit.com, making it impossible to block.
Yikes.
I'm more afraid for them removing the api. The official mobile app is not great and a big portion of their traffic is from mobile.
Well, guessing i'm fully of Reddit now, kitty pics or no.
In the mean time, they add call-to-action buttons to ads.
RIP reddit. I love you and I will never forget what you once represented. Going to be hard to watch her struggle before her last breath, but thats the wheel of birth and death.