I would also include Reddit in this list. The homepage (if you visit incognito or not being signed in) seems to be tailored to bubble up all the "outrageous" events.
I really don’t know why FB and Twitter don’t add an anonymous “dislike” feature. Maybe they tried it and it caused other problems, who knows. More likely though they see that outrage increases engagement even if the toxic environment chases people away eventually.
It's the default page for anyone who isn't logged in (most likely a majority of users, or at least a large fraction). And I'd be willing to bet at least half of logged in users only have the default subs.
I think you downplay how much this affects reddit. Hot-topic issues shift from 55/45 popularity splits (where the minority view is present, but usually overshadowed) to 10/0 when you net out up and downvotes. It gives a sense of single-mindedness in a community where the majority view in truth only barely edges out the others.
- If I dislike something, don't show me that user/subject anymore unless I choose to explore outside my bubble.
- Instead of showing me how the whole world feels about something, show me how MY group (people I've upvoted) feel about it...unless I choose to explore outside my bubble. At the very least - sort comments based on how much I will agree with them.
- Maybe extend it a few levels deep: If I liked someones comment, maybe content which that user liked is also weighted higher for me.
Essentially - just make these things work for me and not some ambiguous majority of the moment. I wish HN would do this too. I really don't care how many anonymous people liked something because they're still wrong IMO. The system is not working for me.
In the real world we've solved all these problems by not forcing everybody to listen to the whole entire world's opinions all the time. In real life, if I'm homophobic/racist/etc, I hang out with my homophobic/racist/etc friends and nobody else sees me because they're busy hanging out with their own kind.
The world is full of bubbles. I don't see why we need the Internet needs to always be the polar opposite of how real life relationships work.
Of course there should still be ways to explore outside your bubble. However, there's probably no easy money with my ideas. All the user engagement addiction comes from outraging people.
Well, maybe, just maybe, we should expose these people to non-homophobic and interracial content to "brainwash" them into thinking that black or gay people might not be as bad as they think :D
I don't think it's working...
I think the test case is probably r/libertarian where the mods are extremely hands-off, you’ll still get the downvote hammer and it’s sometimes infuriating but it’s nothing like saying something unpopular in r/politics, which isn’t even one of the worst ones.
They use Twitter and their parents use Facebook. Any article I've seen on reddit treats it as closer to 4chan than Twitter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications
A company that owns a fair amount of media outlets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Advance_subsidiaries
Why would they report anything bad about themselves?
https://www.hearst.com/-/the-hearst-corporation-and-conde-na...
One of the board members of the associated press is from hearst
https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/125749Z:US
The associated press is a gigantic media organization that dominates just about all global media.
Most media are ran and controlled by the same people at the very top who have interests in a staggering amount of the media consumed around the world.
And essentially, reddit became the media's answer to facebook et al. after it was purchased by them.
Facebook and Google are sucking all the profits from old media - Reddit is their hedge against that. Of course they don't complain.
That being said, it really annoyed me how many AOC posts I saw on Reddit. I kinda like her, but I'm not from the US, so ultimately I don't care that much. It felt like Reddit was just a place to post every AOC tweet in existence.
Of course we can argue that hate is always bad, but this would turn into the ancient argument about what (physical) targets the right has, vs. the left. One group punches down, the other group tends to punch up.
And only one group of people says that they're being literally killed by words.
Also, most news channels do zero (literally) fact checking and often explicitly lie. Through 2020 I've seen so many talking heads directly contradict the videos coming out of events. Videos they could easily find and watch on Youtube if they cared.
If you haven't seen it in a while, using a new browser or incognito mode, view reddit without logging in. It is an absolutely awful experience. The content you see as a new user is basically all memes and you are blasted with trending content on top of the card based feed.
1. Many posts & comments are still longer than 3 half-lines, which is the upper limit of what a journalist can read (journalists like the 'journalists' who spend their time looking for something juicy on Twitter/FB).
2. Famous, bankable, known people are less identifiable.
Many women's subreddits, especially if they're for lesbians, are entirely moderated by men. The ones that weren't were slandered off of Reddit.
You can still find non-charged submissions on r/Texas's new feed, but those don't wind up being seen on r/Texas's hot feed when there is so much charged content.
More eyes at all costs has a price. It's not just money.