Where Trolls Reigned Free: A New History of Reddit
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Or, maybe the site was never anywhere close to as "toxic" as you're describing and you're making mountains out of mole hills.
This article still seems unnecessarily harsh. Reddit didn't set out to be bad. Most of the moderators try to do a good job. The bad elements on the site are pervasive and can destroy a positive subreddit with a sideways glance. Let's not forget this is the place where a conspiracy theory was born that caused a pizza place to get labeled a pedophile ring causing a man to shoot up the place.
For a long time Reddit's stance was to let subreddits be subreddits. If you wanted to heavily moderate your sub's content, fine. If you wanted near anarchy, also fine. Anything within the bounds of the site-wide rules (no doxxing, nothing illegal) was fair game, and if users didn't like it they didn't have to read the sub. If you found it to be a poor venue for political discourse you were probably posting on the wrong subs.
There's a worrying trend towards authoritarianism on the web. I wish we could get more popular momentum behind truly federated platforms.
Clearly, some things cross the line but who do you let draw the line?
What in the world is the author talking about? I went there to discuss local issues (r/stlouis), look at cool maps (r/MapPorn), find credit card deals (r/churning), and shit-talk sports (r/baseball and r/hockey).
I've been on reddit for almost 13 years. I keep seeing hot takes about what it supposedly is (or was), but they never match my experience.
You can find porn and nazis on the internet, yes, but it would be a profound mistake to describe the internet as a tool for finding porn and nazis. So it is with reddit, too.
The reality is a bunch of nerds being pretentious about music do not make for good clickbait. Online nazis do.
If you aren't aware of any of it, the Gawker story on violentacrez (still available online) is good picture of the nastiest side of the site. Its publication was (and remains) hugely controversial.
Neither is true.
Actually, your interpretation is a fair reading of what I wrote, but I would prefer positioning 2) as "its presence is a deal-breaker."
Like, if I go to a shopping center, and they leased three of their 100 lots to the KKK, NAMBLA, and ISIS... I'm probably not going back to that mall. It might not be the mall's "defining quality", but it's enough that I would think poorly of the property owners.
Even going back to the violentacrez/JB scandal, reddit dragged its feet for quite a long time on removing the most offensive content & subreddits from the platform. Today they're a bit more responsive to this, likely due to reddit's more mainstream popularity and media coverage. Still, there's quite a lot of hate that festers on the platform. Whether or not reddit wants to be more active about it is of course up to them, and will take balancing of their leadership's philosophy with what their advertisers and users expect. At the very least, there is some evidence that banning the problem sections of the website reduces hate speech on the platform.