Hacker News Reader

Comment by nothrowaways | Hacker News Reader

> “The Reddit corpus of data is really valuable,”

Totally agree, no question about that. But data comes from users. Shouldn't they also get paid?

Please no. I wish the users who create quality posts could get paid. But sadly, once money is involved, people will start to gamify the system, posting as much barely-passable garbage as possible to maximize upvotes, and the quality of content will deteriorate very quickly.

Money's already involved. Rather than posting barely-passable garbage, the automated systems just repost things that were popular a year or two to various subjects, with the top few comments replacing the titles of the posts. There are a number of counter-bots that detect these posts and warn people that the content is being automatically reposted, but it doesn't really stop it form happening. Presumably Reddit chooses not to stop it because, hey, engagement, woo, metrics go up, manager of engagement look good.

I'm not sure exactly how they're monetizing (maybe they sell the accounts once they have some popular posts?), but they definitely are.

I think this is actually a reddit, and all other similar platforms, problem. The issue is that there's good content, funny memes, insightful essays, whatever, that was submitted in the past. Some of it is no longer relevant and some of it your audience has already seen and would be bored by - but lots of it would be valuable to resurface now.

Because reddit focuses mainly on what's happening recently the good content of the past that might be relevant to a user today is buried. Reposters play a valuable role in resurfacing content. I think a better paradigm, though one I can't really imagine that well, would remove the need for reposters by automatically showing the content they would repost. Maybe a recommendation algorithm?

No, the issue is that pretend internet points always end up having real value, because human brains are lazy and rate in-group signalling really high and therefore trust ads that come from "big people" more. That's like the whole thing behind the influencer advertising economy.

Reddit didn't get rid of r/hailcorporate on accident. There are literal industries that exist to make fake accounts, karma farm, and sell use of those accounts to post basically sponsored messages that maybe even reddit itself doesn't know are sponsored. Think of how many people say "I search reddit for product recommendations" and know that companies have been pushing on that button for years and years. Whether reddit is honestly trying to prevent this kind of stuff doesn't actually matter, because as long as real moderation costs money and breaking that moderation makes money, the advantage is towards those who break it. FFS, reddit still has most popular subreddits modded by one account and their sockpuppets.

They got rid of HailCorporate? I'm only a casual Reddit reader so I thought that I had missed some ban drama but it's still there:

https://old.reddit.com/r/HailCorporate/

It no longer shows up on the /all tab for most users. I imagine that is due to some rule fiddling they did, similar to how one of the donald trump subreddits kept gaming the system to be most of the me page so they changed the rules.

Hard agree.

It'd turn into a world where people would try to make money (which still happens but normally is sniffed out), instead of a place where people like LundgrensFrontKick produce content, for free, because they love doing so, like:

* Estimating how long it took The Joker to set up the giant cash pyramid in The Dark Knight

* Comparing the box office success of movies that have a snowmobile action scene vs those that have a jet ski action scene

* Objectively trying to determine which Fast and Furious movie was the fastest and most furious

https://www.reddit.com/user/LundgrensFrontKick/?sort=top

Yes I know he has like a podcast now or something, but that only came after years of doing this for no reason other than he enjoyed doing it.

I came across this user just last week from their Vin Diesel sleeveless shirt post! It was the first time I've ever seen their content.

It is extremely interesting that money fails so hard at the one thing it should be good at, incentivizing behavior. I mean, yes, you'd get more content, but it would be hollow, as you say.

> It is extremely interesting that money fails so hard at the one thing it should be good at, incentivizing behavior.

Money itself doesn't fail to incentivize behavior. Rather, it is what you choose to reward with money that has be carefully chosen to incentivize the behaviors you want to encourage (via monetary reward).

Money is a fantastic motivator, as evidence by how quickly flaws in systems are gamed in order to attain it.

It's not money that's failing, it's the rule-masters. Agents can't work well in systems with bad rules.

No, it's money. Because the rule-masters you complain about are just optimizing for more money.

Sounds like a good motivator if even the rule-masters are chasing it.

It can be a good motivator and till be failing to serve any greater social purpose. People and organizations can get addicted to money exactly the same as people get addicted to sugar, nicotine, or cocaine. Addicts can be enormously tenacious, creative, and resourceful, but only to the end of feeding their addiction.

Totally agree. I was just taking issue with the blame on money specifically. Money is working as intended. The rules in which money is operating are fundamentally broken though, no doubt.

This is an interesting line of reasoning, does it also apply to HN karma and the big acquirers of karma?

It could. Some people pursue it very aggressively, optimizing submission times and autoposting submissions of new papers or blog posts, for example. I recall one semi-spam account that was set up to submit anything relating to Ruby, including videos that happened to mention gemstones in the title.

Basically the same as the alignment problem in AI. You need to be very careful of how you define your rewards, because you'll end up incentivizing exactly what you define.

It is like Goodhart‘s Law (When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure) with an incentive attached to the measure. It probably needs to be in constant flux by design. Maybe a good thing as it would otherwise get rigid and boring.

Money spent is a good way to understand revealed preferences but this goes only one-way: you can't hand out money to reveal preferences.

This is also prevalent with the way that Google incentivizes page content structure now. I have to get 3/4 the way through a page before I find what I'm looking for because they encourage this big kitchen sink posts.

When you incentivize words, you get words.

How is that any different from current Reddit? The users gamify themselves into garbage without money.

Youtubers who rise to the top seem to satisfy their viewers even if there's hard monetary incentive

As an avid redditor I can say it's already like that and they will teach it nothing of value unless they limit it to a very low number of subreddits, which will still barely teach it anything of value unless the goal is teaching it current generation humor and shitposting habits, which would be very valuable to anyone wanting to boost engagement and try to sway a fairly left leaning generation of people toward whatever they're selling.

Which is today's right-wing billionaires and their pet politicians.

Hate to say it but this happens already from what I've seen on Reddit. Even decent subreddits I've followed for years that don't have the issues the major subs have. People want their karma, post low quality content, and somehow people still upvote them.

This is already an issue with the mods of the big subreddits being partial to both bias and incentives.

Welcome to the Internet. Should we ban users who try to make money from their skills?

This isn't really users trying to make money from their skills.

This is a company taking user contributions as their own, aggregating it, and using their work for free to make money off it.

Solution, just use historical content.

Good point.

>people will start to gamify the system, posting as much barely-passable garbage as possible to maximize upvotes

As if this behavior isn't already rampant.

FWIW, we at Medium feel pretty similarly to Reddit but with a yes to this question about whether authors should get paid.

AI companies are betraying basic business principles: they are taking value from datasets like Reddit and Medium without giving any value back. Fine if you can get away with it. But since AI, especially text based LLMs, relies on source material, it's pretty straightforward for the platforms that host that source material to deny access. Things like ChatGPT do need current source material.

I don't think it'll come to a war though and that the AI companies will instead give some value back. It could be as simple as citations that send traffic back. That's essentially the exchange of value that we all have with Google these days.

But if it's money, then I think the obligation is for platforms to pass that on the authors. It'd be hard for an individual author to negotiate this on their own with a company like OpenAI, but platforms are in a good position to negotiate on their behalf.

The content is public. Internet companies are staring to sound like Disney.

The AI is definitely giving value back.

It’s public for humans, not for other businesses stealing it for their own profit. I don’t want to be an anymous contributor to an AI.

Another in a really long list of issues that need a clear differentiation between human consumption and machines. So many things that were innocuous or even useful before the age of ubiquitous cameras, other sensors, and computers, are now a big problem.

As an end user I get a lot of value from AI companies.

I’m curious how a content platforms TOS will matchup against a Search Engine’s webcrawler TOS.

“I want people to find and access my content, but I own it.”

“I will send people to your content, but any public data I can access, I can store and process how I want.”

You're in no position to negotiate this with OpenAI because they already have the relevant data stored locally. So does Google/Bing. You could be in a position to negotiate it with smaller upcoming OpenAI competitors, but all that will achieve is granting OpenAI and Google/Bing a monopoly because their competitors will have new large costs that they don't.

Also, Medium has a metered paywall already. Why not just let them open up a corporate account and pay to access paywalled content the same way users do? Why are any negotiations required?

BTW I use Medium but I never use the paywall. I'm fine with my content being used to train AI for free. The payments and tax complexity involved aren't worth the tiny amount of income that any such deal might generate, nor do I want OpenAI to have a monopoly.

Maybe no position with Google because they can bundle it with search results and threaten to take away search traffic. But OpenAI definitely does not already have all the relevant data. They need the new stuff also. That's part of the Reddit position as well.

I wonder to what extent that is true, now LLMs can search the web and read the results?

Not according to the Reddit user agreement:

https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement

> When Your Content is created with or submitted to the Services, you grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works of, distribute, store, perform, and display Your Content and any name, username, voice, or likeness provided in connection with Your Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed anywhere in the world. This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit. You also agree that we may remove metadata associated with Your Content, and you irrevocably waive any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content.

Parent posted asked a "shouldn't they" question, not a "legally must they" question.

Thank you for saying this. It’s a classic appeal to the law fallacy I see so often online.

The Reddit user agreement is written based on US law and would be laughed out of any court in half the world. I literally _cannot_ waive my moral rights, and any company doing that is breaking the law in my country.

Hopefully at least moderators will get paid, and finally be held accountable for their moderation.

Powertripping basement dwellers who ban anyone who refuses to worship their supreme authority are one of the worse aspects of Reddit.

I don't understand this attitude. If you don't like how someone mods their subreddit then why do you want to be part of it in the first place? You can make your own and run it how you please.

You really can't make your own if you're going up against an established subreddit.

This applies doubly so if it's an established region based subreddit i.e. city, state, province, or country, and IMO these are the most problematic subreddits for overmoderation. Finding non-partisan regional subreddits is damn near impossible.

There's two popular NYC subreddits. If two, why not three?

But then people complain about getting banned from the said subreddit for not following the rules that make it what it is. It seems like you want to engage an already established community and just ignore the people that are currently there and play by the existing rules.

> people complain about getting banned from the said subreddit for not following the rules

That's not at all what I'm saying. There are a few subreddits with fair mods who enforce the rules fairly, but the great majority doesn't - they are the rules, and if they don't like you, tough tiddies. Making it effectively a "mod and minions", not a real community with real rules.

I want to be a part of it for the community. Moderators are the (un)necessary evil. The fact that you seem to see moderators as "owners" of a subreddit doesn't really help the case.

Who created the subreddits if not the moderators?

The programmers who wrote Reddit, and the community. A subreddit is nothing without a community, so the fact that a moderator namesquatted a URL doesn't mean he "owns" anything, only that he has the power - the power to moderate it. Which, in my opinion, goes with the responsibility of upholding publicly stated rules and enforcing them in a fair manner.

Unfortunately, many of them start thinking, like you, that the power to moderate means they are the supreme authority and that the subreddit is about them - so they behave accordingly, feeding their ego at the expense of a community. Of course, if you believe the power itself gives them ownership over a community, that's fine. It's just that I don't.

> If you don't like how someone mods their subreddit then why do you want to be part of it in the first place?

Access to the rest of the current community.

The current community follows the rules of the community by definition.

No, the community follows the rules of the moderators by definition. The community itself doesn't get a say.

I would say no to this. Reddit is giving you a platform and in exchange they get the content. If you don't think that is fair deal you're free to just not make the content.

Exactly. Users who contribute to the community of a for-profit enterprise that monetizes their contribution should also get paid.

I remember the good ol' days before reddit, where every community had its own forum, ran for the community, not for profit. Sure, they were running some ads to keep the lights on, but those were non targeted ads, just generic stuff based on the community.

With Dpreview dying along with so many other forums that used to serve various communities on the decline, Reddit becoming the one-stop-shop for all communities is the worst possible outcome.

They are getting paid: in the form of a discount on the cost for using the platform.

What's the cost of using the platform?

Whatever it takes to pay for servers, software engineers, and security teams divided by however many people are using with in a given time period.

I meant costs for their users. Reddit are covering their costs through ads and VC money. The users are creating the content on their platform that attracts more users. The users are the value to reddit.

Reddit has been experimenting with both fiat and Ethereum based approaches to compensate users. But we are talking about cents.

Moderators should, in my opinion. They’re doing a ton of the thankless janitorial work of cleaning up Reddit’s walled garden. If Reddit mods quit for a week Reddit wouldn’t have a product.

And yet it's going to be the other way around, since now we, the users are going to have to pay for the API to use a usable app.

As a Reddit addict who's spent thousands of hours on the website, I feel I am very well compensated for my content. For every post and comment I give to Reddit, Reddit serves me millions of posts and comments in return. This has massive entertainment and educational value to me, so I consider it a very favourable trade.

There is already a compensation system setup for ugc. Users are already free to evaluate what they share on Reddit for what they get in return. But users have effectively been compensated for providing their content.

Users may not get paid, but they do get free access to one of the best moderated community web sites on the planet. I get hours of enjoyment and engagement from Reddit. Totally worth it for me. Of course YMMV...

There would be far less objections to generative AI if these tools were being harnessed by (for example) social democracies to make societies overall more efficient and productive and to redistribute gains into greater overall security. What HN users tend to summarily dismiss as Luddism is the “golden rule” form of American Capitalism, where having the most money/compute resources entitles you to scrape and enclose the sum total of human creative and intellectual output for corporate gain. It’s the basic conflict of Capitalism - what gains should be returned to labor vs Capital owners, sublimated through a whole mess of pedantry, philosophizing, and cynical legal maneuvering to obfuscate that fact.

A startup actually messaged me a few months ago that is trying to do something similar to that. Basically you get paid for your ad targeting data.

The models should be open source because they used open source data to create them, or scrapped content without an explicit granted permission.

Something tells me users would have mixed reactions to monetizing karma, even if Reddit would support it.

What's good for Reddit is ultimately going to be good for Reddit users.

Not really, you have so much garbage mixed in from troll-bots.

Does that follow? Who owns the data?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com