16 votes

Reddit worries it’s going to be crushed in the fight against Big Tech

35 comments

  1. [27]
    knocklessmonster
    Link
    Has Reddit demonstrated that it deserves to be treated differently than Facebook or Twitter? I personally don't think so, with their general reluctance to shut down actively hateful subreddits....

    Has Reddit demonstrated that it deserves to be treated differently than Facebook or Twitter? I personally don't think so, with their general reluctance to shut down actively hateful subreddits. This doesn't really help Reddit's case, I feel.

    When asked about whether legislation is needed, Lee says:

    I feel that Reddit has struggled with the balance between fighting hate online and balancing it against freedom of expression, just as much as our whole country has tried to struggle with that balance.

    If a site like Reddit isn't ready and willing to clearly define, and decisively act on the removal of hate speech, they definitely need some body to make the definition for them so they can act on it. I don't necessarily want to see 230 go away because of the side-effects it'll have on the internet, but it may be that the internet also is incapable of functioning safely with it if all of our content providers are incapable of keeping toxic rhetoric off their platforms.

    24 votes
    1. [25]
      nacho
      Link Parent
      Let's say people came to my privately owned parking lot and performed a bunch of illegal acts. Over and over again, and I did nothing to stop them. Let's say I didn't even ask those people to...

      Let's say people came to my privately owned parking lot and performed a bunch of illegal acts. Over and over again, and I did nothing to stop them.

      Let's say I didn't even ask those people to leave my parking lot, or didn't even know about it because I don't do anything to check the state of my parking lot.

      Even further, let's say I knew about the illegal stuff happening on my parking lot, did nothing to stop, much less reported that illegal activity to the relevant authorities or did anything at all to stop it from happening over and over.

      That's what social media platforms are doing. It's obvious that section 230 must go, and be replaced by reasonable accountability for policing their areas, just like everywhere else in society.


      The whole business model of having huge platforms without human oversight is broken. As society, we cannot accept that people run sites like this. For the sake of democracy, safety and the integrity of our societies.

      Social media sites will have to expect large operating costs for moderating their platforms. That's only reasonable.

      11 votes
      1. [10]
        soks_n_sandals
        Link Parent
        It's not your obligation as a parking lot owner to do any of those things. I park in your lot and my car is broken into, or someone backs into my car. You have a sign up that says you aren't...

        It's not your obligation as a parking lot owner to do any of those things. I park in your lot and my car is broken into, or someone backs into my car. You have a sign up that says you aren't liable for the actions taken in your lot. I call the police to report the crime and for insurance. The onus is on me, the user, to direct my reporting the appropriate channel. I would not park in your lot again. I will go to a monitored, proactive lot where my possessions are safe.

        These platforms do have oversight. It is generally insufficient at handling the massive amount of content produced within the site. Section 230 is crucial to the internet. I agree that the way that Facebook and Twitter have handled their sites is shameful, and I think that we need to think critically about what constitutes free speech and whether it should be altered, but removing the S230 protection from the web isn't the right path forward.

        16 votes
        1. [8]
          nacho
          Link Parent
          I believe very clearly that I as a parking lot owner have that moral responsibility. If our legal system isn't based on morality, but some abstract principles for the sake of principle, our...

          I believe very clearly that I as a parking lot owner have that moral responsibility.

          If our legal system isn't based on morality, but some abstract principles for the sake of principle, our society becomes heartless. Clearly "letting the market decide" whether businesses are morally bankrupt or not is not the right system. We require regulation.


          It's obvious why the US is struggling so extremely with Covid: Preventing pandemic outbreaks relies on people showing a modicum of courtesy to others. The whole US society has been warped over the last couple of decades to ensure that it's everyone for themselves, at any cost.

          We live in a society. We need to hold each other to account as society if that society is to function.

          6 votes
          1. [7]
            soks_n_sandals
            Link Parent
            I don't disagree that you as an owner have a moral responsibility and that taking action is the right thing to do. Rather, I am arguing that you are not liable for the things that happen on your...

            I don't disagree that you as an owner have a moral responsibility and that taking action is the right thing to do. Rather, I am arguing that you are not liable for the things that happen on your lot. You should care, and enact provisions to keep it safe, but for you to stand liable for the actions of another is a different matter.

            10 votes
            1. [6]
              Omnicrola
              Link Parent
              I think @nacho 's main point is not that we should hold someone liable for the actions of another. I agree that doesn't make sense. Rather, I think their point is that we should hold someone...

              I think @nacho 's main point is not that we should hold someone liable for the actions of another. I agree that doesn't make sense. Rather, I think their point is that we should hold someone responsible for overseeing a pattern.

              To continue with the parking lot analogy, if a car is broken into once in awhile, we should not hold the owner liable. If every night a car is broken into, and the owner takes no action, sets no cameras, doesn't hire security, doesn't put up a fence, and instead puts up a sign saying they're not responsible for theft, I think they should be held accountable for negligence.

              The analogy breaks down a bit here because there are usually many other parking lots to choose from. To make it a little more in line with say Facebook, we would need to imagine this parking lot as the largest one in town, and the only alternatives are either so small or so distant from relevant locations as to be laughably irrelevant. The responsibility of that effective monopoly is even higher.

              Perhaps a better analogy would be a landlord. If your apartment building was burgled on a regular basis, and the owner refused to install locks, cameras, or other security, they are actually liable for this. Not for the actual burglary, but for negligence. Here's an explanation from a law firm about landlord security responsibilities.

              This kind of responsibility applies to any landlord large or small. I see no reason why something similar shouldn't be applied to internet content.

              10 votes
              1. [5]
                Grzmot
                Link Parent
                But the problem is; there isn't a parking lot on this planet that has the capacity, and frequently serve millions to billions of users a day. And if it would exist, it'd have massive problems of...

                But the problem is; there isn't a parking lot on this planet that has the capacity, and frequently serve millions to billions of users a day. And if it would exist, it'd have massive problems of detecting crime and stolen cars, and even if you'd detect it, you'd have to get there first.

                Automated content moderation is terrible at actually moderating content. Blacklists don't work, all they do is hide the toxicity and make it harder to detect. The only solution we have found so far (and if large companies could find automated solutions, they would, cause they're cheaper) is throwing a shitton of people at the problem, usually from third-world countries, which get to read vile shit every day, frequently ending in depression. The problem here is that people are, in any business, the most expensive part.

                Contrary to @nacho's opinion on the matter, I don't think small sites can gain here. They are often run by volunteers or small teams and don't have the revenue to hire a team to purely take care of the toxicity, hell they barely have the revenue to keep the site online. They'd have to charge for access, which would turn off the majority of potential users and drive them to places which are free or can swallow the cost of moderation, i.e. big sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc.

                If the site is run by volunteers, no one is going to volunteer to go through a queue of reported content. And all it needs is a single lawsuit that even if fradulent, at least in the US, can tank a site, since everyone pays for their own fees.

                11 votes
                1. AugustusFerdinand
                  Link Parent
                  In this problem also lies the solution. If a parking lot is too large to made secure so that illegal activity cannot be prevented or prosecuted, then it is simply too large to exist.

                  But the problem is; there isn't a parking lot on this planet that has the capacity, and frequently serve millions to billions of users a day. And if it would exist, it'd have massive problems of detecting crime and stolen cars, and even if you'd detect it, you'd have to get there first.

                  In this problem also lies the solution. If a parking lot is too large to made secure so that illegal activity cannot be prevented or prosecuted, then it is simply too large to exist.

                  8 votes
                2. [3]
                  Omnicrola
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  That's a very valid point. The strength of the internet is also part of the core problem here, the ability for people who belong to minority groups or hold minority beliefs to find each other. The...

                  That's a very valid point. The strength of the internet is also part of the core problem here, the ability for people who belong to minority groups or hold minority beliefs to find each other. The downside is that instead of 100 towns each dealing with one flat earther, we have them all shouting together.

                  I don't know what to do here either. But I think we (the people, via government) should start trying something.

                  edit: holy typos. I should not be allowed to type responses on my phone right after waking up

                  4 votes
                  1. [2]
                    Grzmot
                    Link Parent
                    I wouldn't call it a core problem, more a medal with two sides. Minorities can find each other, which can lead to forums where racial minorities, queer people, disabled people, any kind of group...

                    The strength of the internet is also part of the core problem here, in it's ability of people who being to minority groups or hold minority beliefs to find each other.

                    I wouldn't call it a core problem, more a medal with two sides. Minorities can find each other, which can lead to forums where racial minorities, queer people, disabled people, any kind of group can form and share their experiences, something that wasn't possible before. But the problem is that minorities, like you said, can also be "bad", i.e. anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, etc. People like that before couldn't find like-minded people, so often enough they either adopted the majority (usually sensible) opinion because they valued their social standing more than their crazy beliefs, or they kept believing it, but were ostracized and no one bothered with them.

                    4 votes
                    1. [2]
                      Comment deleted by author
                      Link Parent
                      1. Grzmot
                        Link Parent
                        Building a common API sounds like a solution, until you realize that you now have a piece of tech where the legislative and big corporations have a say in how it is developed. It will be outdated...

                        Building a common API sounds like a solution, until you realize that you now have a piece of tech where the legislative and big corporations have a say in how it is developed. It will be outdated the day the spec sheet is released, and trying to update it after it's inception will be a nightmare. Federation is a neat concept, but especially with regards to the toxicity problem, because if posts can exist on multiple platforms, how do you deal with banned users? They get banned off your platform, but if they post on a different one, and someone from your platform still subscribes to them or whatever, do they see the post? If yes, you're opening yourself up to legal action once again, and if no, how would you even implement it? A universal blacklist shared across sites? At that point you might return back to a centralized service anyway.

                        1 vote
      2. [8]
        AresUII
        Link Parent
        How will this not just entrench Twitbook and kill all competitors?

        Social media sites will have to expect large operating costs for moderating their platforms.

        How will this not just entrench Twitbook and kill all competitors?

        13 votes
        1. [7]
          nacho
          Link Parent
          A host of other sites manage this reasonably. Like the comment sections on most serious publications. It's the large social media sites who will struggle with moderation demands. Smaller sites are...

          A host of other sites manage this reasonably. Like the comment sections on most serious publications.

          It's the large social media sites who will struggle with moderation demands. Smaller sites are already doing more and are the ones who stand to gain.

          3 votes
          1. [5]
            NaraVara
            Link Parent
            Most serious publications have either given up on having comment sections, or their comment sections are cesspools.

            Like the comment sections on most serious publications.

            Most serious publications have either given up on having comment sections, or their comment sections are cesspools.

            18 votes
            1. [4]
              nacho
              Link Parent
              I don't have issues here with my local paper, the regional paper, any scientific publication I read, any of the national newspapers I subscribe to or other serious publications I visit. They all...

              I don't have issues here with my local paper, the regional paper, any scientific publication I read, any of the national newspapers I subscribe to or other serious publications I visit.

              They all have comment sections. They mostly all seem to pre-moderate comments before they're shown. Many have opening hours for their comment sections that seem to match regular working hours.

              My experience must differ vastly to yours. Do you pay for news? I think I get what I pay for when content and comment sections are behind a paywall.

              5 votes
              1. NaraVara
                Link Parent
                Those aren't 'comment sections' really. They're more like letters to the editor. Pre-clearing comments doesn't work at scale.

                They all have comment sections. They mostly all seem to pre-moderate comments before they're shown. Many have opening hours for their comment sections that seem to match regular working hours.

                Those aren't 'comment sections' really. They're more like letters to the editor. Pre-clearing comments doesn't work at scale.

                6 votes
              2. [2]
                soks_n_sandals
                Link Parent
                The comment sections behind the paywall of WaPo still leave a lot to be desired. It's much better than my local news, especially the Facebook comments, but still not great.

                The comment sections behind the paywall of WaPo still leave a lot to be desired. It's much better than my local news, especially the Facebook comments, but still not great.

                5 votes
                1. dredmorbius
                  Link Parent
                  H.L. Mencken was famously dismissive of the typical newspaper letter-writer. The tendency is not new.

                  H.L. Mencken was famously dismissive of the typical newspaper letter-writer. The tendency is not new.

                  2 votes
          2. MetArtScroll
            Link Parent
            It is not possible to require that the entire Internet be serious. I am incredibly happy that Tildes exists but sometimes I want to look at cute cats, beautiful humans, or funny videos. It is...

            on most serious publications

            It is not possible to require that the entire Internet be serious. I am incredibly happy that Tildes exists but sometimes I want to look at cute cats, beautiful humans, or funny videos.

            Smaller sites are already doing more

            It is economically unfeasible to perfectly moderate a large site. However, the economic gains from scale and network effects are much larger than the losses from occasionally seeing problematic content.

            5 votes
      3. [5]
        NaraVara
        Link Parent
        The analogy with social media is less like a parking lot in front of your house and more like a 10,000 acre forest. You certainly have a right to get people off your land, but you're not really...

        Let's say people came to my privately owned parking lot and performed a bunch of illegal acts. Over and over again, and I did nothing to stop them.

        The analogy with social media is less like a parking lot in front of your house and more like a 10,000 acre forest. You certainly have a right to get people off your land, but you're not really accountable for what people are doing on it without your knowledge. You might even see evidence that people are there and doing shady stuff, but it's not really on you to police that yourself. You call the police for trespassing.

        7 votes
        1. [4]
          nacho
          Link Parent
          The density of people means that no, this isn't a forest. It's a downtown city block during rush hour, it's a football stadium during a game, it's a festival concert, it's a huge mall on Black...

          The density of people means that no, this isn't a forest. It's a downtown city block during rush hour, it's a football stadium during a game, it's a festival concert, it's a huge mall on Black Friday. It's the breach on the Fourth of July.

          Again, all those venues are responsible for ensuring safety when people group in large numbers.

          9 votes
          1. [3]
            NaraVara
            Link Parent
            "Safety" in all those cases refers to things other than "people being assholes." None of these things are germane in digital space aside from data security and privacy.

            Again, all those venues are responsible for ensuring safety when people group in large numbers.

            "Safety" in all those cases refers to things other than "people being assholes." None of these things are germane in digital space aside from data security and privacy.

            1 vote
            1. [2]
              Micycle_the_Bichael
              Link Parent
              I'm not sure what Flight of the Conchords has to do with this going to go ahead and label this as joke/noise and move on...

              None of these things are germane

              I'm not sure what Flight of the Conchords has to do with this

              going to go ahead and label this as joke/noise and move on...

              1 vote
              1. NaraVara
                Link Parent
                It's Jemaine you savage!

                It's Jemaine you savage!

                2 votes
      4. LukeZaz
        Link Parent
        I think your analogy breaks down immediately here; IIRC, the toxicity on places like Reddit is very frequently not illegal in the least. If it were illegal, they would already be held liable if...

        Let's say people came to my privately owned parking lot and performed a bunch of illegal acts.

        I think your analogy breaks down immediately here; IIRC, the toxicity on places like Reddit is very frequently not illegal in the least. If it were illegal, they would already be held liable if they refuse to remove it.

        4 votes
    2. MetArtScroll
      Link Parent
      If such a body should be instituted, do not be surprised if they define hateful and toxic in a way that is different from yours in an unexpectedly unpleasant manner. The other options is “letters...

      some body to make the definition

      If such a body should be instituted, do not be surprised if they define hateful and toxic in a way that is different from yours in an unexpectedly unpleasant manner.

      I don't necessarily want to see 230 go away because of the side-effects it'll have on the internet

      The other options is “letters to the editor,” though Google, Facebook, and Twitter will probably survive.

      6 votes
  2. [7]
    joplin
    Link
    How is Reddit not a part of "Big Tech"? According to Wikipedia, they're currently the 17th most visited site on the internet.

    How is Reddit not a part of "Big Tech"? According to Wikipedia, they're currently the 17th most visited site on the internet.

    8 votes
    1. Micycle_the_Bichael
      Link Parent
      If I’m guessing the argument would be they only have 500 employees.

      If I’m guessing the argument would be they only have 500 employees.

      5 votes
    2. [4]
      p4t44
      Link Parent
      Would you consider Wikipedia to be part of big tech? It's above reddit.

      Would you consider Wikipedia to be part of big tech? It's above reddit.

      5 votes
      1. [2]
        aditya
        Link Parent
        Should a distinction be made for their for-profit vs not for-profit status? Arguably Wikipedia isn't trying to make a profit off their users?

        Should a distinction be made for their for-profit vs not for-profit status? Arguably Wikipedia isn't trying to make a profit off their users?

        3 votes
        1. Omnicrola
          Link Parent
          I do think there should be a distinction. The profit motive is ultimately corrupting if left to influence an organization without external checks and balances. Which is arguably what we're seeing...

          I do think there should be a distinction. The profit motive is ultimately corrupting if left to influence an organization without external checks and balances. Which is arguably what we're seeing with FB/Google/Twitter.

          5 votes
      2. joplin
        Link Parent
        Yes, I would. They run very lean, but given their status on that list, I would count them. They're a non-profit, but I think of them as a big-tech non-profit.

        Yes, I would. They run very lean, but given their status on that list, I would count them. They're a non-profit, but I think of them as a big-tech non-profit.

        1 vote
    3. [2]
      Comment deleted by author
      Link Parent
      1. joplin
        Link Parent
        Yeah that makes sense. I do think they're fairly influential. As far as revenue, they're still VC-backed, right? Does Uber count as big tech? They're VC-backed but I think of them as part of big...

        Yeah that makes sense. I do think they're fairly influential. As far as revenue, they're still VC-backed, right? Does Uber count as big tech? They're VC-backed but I think of them as part of big tech, too.

        1 vote
  3. MetArtScroll
    Link
    Scattered thoughts: This is not just about Reddit, this is about the modern Internet. The main features of CDA 230 are that (i) platforms are not responsible for their users' actions and (ii)...

    Scattered thoughts:

    1. This is not just about Reddit, this is about the modern Internet.
    2. The main features of CDA 230 are that (i) platforms are not responsible for their users' actions and (ii) platforms have the right to moderate.
    3. The current attacks against CDA 230 are not about “hateful” or “toxic” content. Some are about the “moderation bias,” some are just about re-introducing platform responsibility, some (EARN IT) have other intentions such as banning encryption.
    4. Without CDA 230, the Internet will basically return to the late 1990s, when most websites had no comment sections due to the potential liability should an evil-minded user post something problematic. There were (and, in countries without laws similar to CDA 230, this has always been basically the only other option) fringe forums that operated in the grey, i.e., hoping that they would manage to remove problematic submissions/comments before those user actions were reported to authorities. There also were (and are) sites with full pre-moderation, which are extremely dull as not everyone is willing to wait for hours for a comment to be published.
    7 votes