Film studios lose bid to unmask Reddit users who wrote comments on piracy
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
https://torrentfreak.com/filmmakers-request-identities-of-re...
- "However, Reddit decided to share information about “ben125125”, while protecting the other users. As shown above, “ben125125” responded to a thread about piracy warnings and specifically mentioned RCN. That wasn’t as obvious in the other comments and Reddit feels that disclosing their identities goes too far."
edit: The linked court order also mentions this (page 3, lines 6–7)
Reddit is were actual discussion goes to die. Comes with the downvote ability I suppose.
Mods on the “old forums” routinely deleted posts and banned users because they don’t like their opinion or hell even just as a “fuck why not it’s funny”.
Source: was a mod and active participant of such forums and saw it all the time. Did my fair share too.
And another particularly niche forum dedicated to a specific range of car chassis with a specific set of engine swaps that would permaban anyone who asked a question that could be answered via forum search. Which was at least mentioned in the forum rules you had to read before joining.
Forum mods were notorious power trippers on any forum I've been on. Sometimes it was worth it just to keep order. Other times it led to flame wars and forum splinters where a few people would start their own in competition to try and pick up the unhappy crowd.
So really nothing has changed because this is exactly how most discord/telegram servers, forums, subreddits, etc still function.
Back about 10-15 years ago I agreed to be a mod on a pretty large and popular forum, naively thinking I could help keep the place decent and useful for the users. What I discovered instantly were hidden mod forums where they made fun of all the users, laughed about arbitrarily banning people, and discussed about how they banned posts about illegal stuff mostly because it gave away their secrets. I gave that up quickly and decided I was all set with modding.
Half of my hardworking, law-abiding immigrant community of doctors, engineers, and scientists were on the_donald. These are people who’ve actually faced hate in this country and who likely have way more exposure to people of different races & backgrounds than the average American.
If that does nothing to make you reevaluate your opinion, then you are sadly and ironically a victim of divisive indoctrination.
Edit: For context, the parent advocated banning users from an entire subreddit as a sound moderation strategy.
You would be disingenuous to not acknowledge the political forces at play. Mods were on high alert because they knew admins were waiting for the most microscopic of reasons to ban the sub. And we know these forces exist. Twitter is proof positive of political bias in content moderation.
People of all backgrounds were on the_donald, which should make you question why they were tolerant of much of the content you likely perceived as hateful. If your answer is simply that they’re bigots, then I suggest you have more conversations.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-biden...
Doctors had amazing voter turn out in 2020.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
I couldn't find an analysis of how they actually voted in 2020 but only 26% voted for Trump in 2016 before he bungled the pandemic
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/873266
Then there is the fact that a number of doctors think pre-covid trump already was in need of mental health help
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/13/health/trump-mental-health-ex...
Only 15% supported a repeal of Obamacare heavily promoted by Trump before the worst public health crisis in my lifetime.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-obamacare-doctor-s...
Far from it being half of America it looks like a small fraction of educated folks and minorities and a large helping of mostly uneducated white folks. If anything the fact that he has any support at all from educated people in America proves that being an expert in one field doesn't necessarily make you wise.
Let me ask:
Do you think all 30% of college-educated Hispanics who voted for Trump were wholly misguided? Do you believe none of them had legitimate reasons for supporting him?
How about the 8% of black college grads, or the 26% of doctors?
None of these people were competent enough to make an informed decision?
None of them were competent enough to make an informed decision insofar as the leadership of the nation because they relied on faulty analysis, willful ignorance of Donald's many flaws, and self interest in lower taxes.
I'm not sure why this is controversial. The average college educated individual is presumably skilled in their profession but their profession but that is hardly sure to inform their understanding of matters out of scope of that profession.
Do you find it surprising that 30% of any group makes poor decisions?
The most tragic part is you don’t even recognize it. You peddle loaded language with the broadest of strokes without seeing that you yourself are the very thing you believe you’re fighting against.
Genuinely believing every single one of those hispanic grads or doctors were misguided or uninformed, tells me you haven’t had many good faith conversations with people across the aisle. Nowhere do you even acknowledge the legitimacy of or a desire to understand the grievances and concerns that led to their voting behavior. But you’re certainly quick to insults and labeling.
Don’t be an Intellectual Yet Idiot.
“The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited.”
https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e...
It is. 100% it is. If a subreddit shows that it's users continuously abuse the rules of the site, then yes, 100%, it's a sound moderation strategy. Banning regular users of the subreddit and just flushing it all out is sound.
> If that does nothing to make you reevaluate your opinion, then you are sadly and ironically a victim of divisive indoctrination.
The problem is you are misrepresenting what happened. Reddit didn't just "ban users from an entire subreddit." They didn't just randomly pick a large subreddit and ban all the users. Suggesting that they did that is disingenuous at best. So you can play the victim card all you want, but if you can't be honest about what happened that does nothing to make you reevaluate your opinion, then you are sadly and ironically a victim of divisive indoctrination.
A more through approach might to be to analyze the sentiment or at least the score of comments or even go further and analyze the mix of comments and sentiments to decide if someone is an undesirable.
But there is something to be said about having the censor cabal out in the open for everyone to see. Compare that with Facebook or Twitter or Instagram, where there is no record of who is determining what is and isn't ok to say.
The 'proof' is a screenshot of a post that was called '92 of the top 100 subbreddits controlled by the same 5 people' that got removed. Why did it get removed? Who knows?
Do better. If you want to be better than reddit don't do the same dumb shit that it does and check your sources.
https://gist.github.com/bspammer/6b5eff6670e4b839ffea89ceaed...
The highest non-bot user moderates 12 subreddits in the top 100. There's quite a few users who moderate more than 5. I believe the situation was much worse a few years ago, and reddit the company put pressure on them to give up some of their subs.
There's value in any information-sharing they do in that they share trends across subreddits that reddit themselves are opaque about, but the subs still operate autonomously.
BBS like systems and forums had been successfully in use since the early 70s. Usenet is more than 40 years old by now IIRC? Very similar function and open by design.
Even without falling into “Endless September” rose tinted glasses I would argue that we really, really could do a whole lot better in 2023 and going forward.
I guess someone must work on Ted Nelson’s ideas at least (Xanadu, etc)?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProBoards
But Reddit is really bad at long on-going conversations unless it has enough to support its own subreddit.
Car maintenance forums are something I feel doesn’t work well on the Reddit system.
Or anything you’d want chronological or heavy in-like image/video embedding
Everywhere you go its just large swaths of photobucket/cardomain embed failures for the forums that didn't do image hosting.
I still think it has devolved into one of the biggest tire fires on the Internet, but it was a cute idea. Maybe the next attempt will suck less.
I think the main reason people search Reddit from Google is more that Google's search results are bad, not that Reddit is great. When I search Reddit instead of Google, it feels like a hack to work around the fact that Google is overrun with spam.
And, to the extent that Reddit is an essential information source, it's largely because Reddit (and other social sites) destroyed the small websites and blogosphere where this information used to live. Reddit is now kind of the only game in town, which to me is a success for that business, but overall a failure for the web. Compare it to Walmart and Amazon in the retail space: is the fact that we now only shop with those massive companies a victory for the wider retail landscape, or just for those corporations?
Anyway, good point, thank you for the response.I would still like to hear what the original commenter has to say.
I disagree here, Reddit didn't destroy the small websites, the users leaving the small websites destroyed the small websites. Reddit did not put any duress on the users and force them to leave. Instead having everything they wanted in one place without 20 different logins motivated the users to stay on Reddit instead. Convenience motivates individual action.
Also, coming back to your first point on Google, but tying into Reddit. Spammers are destroying the internet. The reason Google is failing is spammers are expending far more energy to spam than Google is willing to spend to detect spam. Reddit is still very willing to expend energy to prevent spam on their site, hence becomes a higher quality source of information than the average search.
The size of Google and Reddit both make them targets for spammers, and I believe eventually their success will be mostly eaten by the costs of preventing spam from ruining their services.
What you find on Reddit represents the views of a small number of moderators and PR organizations.
Reddit has some serious flaws to be sure, and some really shitty subs, but the "genuine, peer-to-peer information" is found there in the weird little niche subs. PR organizations don't care about modified IBM Model M keyboards from 1985, but there's probably a subreddit out there dedicated to just that one thing, with a bunch of genuine information from genuine people who like to modify that keyboard. I could probably find another subreddit dedicated to restoring electronics from the 1940s, something else I'm sure no "PR organization" cares about. There's countless other examples just like this. In fact, if Reddit were confined to extremely narrow special-interest hobby groups like this, it wouldn't have the bad reputation it has now.
It snuffed out small independant competitors, dominates an industry, and wields its tremendous power in a negligent, self-serving, and irresponsible manner.
Before that, I remember slashdot, which was pretty good at culling comments, but article selection was not democratic.
But money screws up everything.
Specifically, I really like the way Slashdot provides more categories for rating comments. '+5 Funny' vs '+5 Insightful' is a very useful distinction. '-1 Off Topic' vs '-1 Flamebait/Troll' is a useful distinction. I don't want to read off topic spam, but I often do want to read unpopular dissenting opinions. Slashdot let me read the "trolls" (dissenters) without having to wade through the literal spam. Great system, HN and reddit would be better if they had something similar.
And once in awhile you'd get picked to meta moderate where you'd be asked if the moderation choice of another user was reasonable.
Dedicated forums for particular topics were generally tiny. A forum with 10k+ people was a sizable forum, and not many where that large. Small communities got very little attention from spammers, and while they had their own trolls giving problems they were much less rarely subjected general trolls unless something like 4chan or whatever came before it picked up on them.
The internet is also huge and has zero degrees of separation in most places. I could post a link to a tiny forum here and 1000 people may see it. I could post it to reddit subthread and a hundred thousand people could see it. Or I could get a front page post on Reddit and a million+ people could see it. And with it tons of trolls, spam, and general idiots will follow and quality goes to trash.
This barely has anything to do with Reddit/Facebook itself. It's the power of network effects congregating people. Facebook was always going to happen, maybe in a slightly different flavor, or slightly different form, but once we got the computing capability to have millions of people at one place at once time, someone was always going to build it.
Video game producers are starting up fan discords that also have the troubleshooting/bug reports channels for the game on them. Video game mod communities are moving to discord.
Its going to really suck when a few years go by and a company closes or moves onto a new game and shuts down their discord. A lot of community sourced info is going to be flushed down the drain if people don't archive it.
Piss off the admin and you might be insta-banned with no recourse. You'd even lose connections to the other users on the forum and would have no way to reach them. You didn't have the option of opening a competing forum where all of the old users already had access like you do with opening a new sub. You'd also lose access to the posts themselves and any content you found useful for the private forums.
You were reliant on the admin to keep the site running. Most had extensive downtime. Things would often break. The admins would have to run charity fund raisers to keep things up and many would threaten to take everything with them if people didn't pay up.
Forum administration was terrible, but there was a far healthier ecosystem full of alternatives that no longer exists. Remember, SomethingAwful's overmoderation was what popularized imageboards for westerners, and Digg's failings were what popularized Reddit. There is no equivalent today.
"Our rule1 protects groups that are attacked based on a vulnerability, which doesn't pertain to white people or men as a group." Screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/NgOxEg0.png
What is rule 1?
"Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned." (https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
So in practice, according to one of their employees it's actually:
"Remember the non-white male human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking non-white people or women. Everyone except white people and men have a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate against non-white people or women will be banned."
And this is absolutely born out in their repeated banning of male-centric subs, while the most toxic community I've ever seen remains, because it's wildly sexist against the correct gender. And there are multiple "fragile white redditor" type subs also, but all other "fragile <race> redditor" subs were instantly banned.
And the bait & switch:
"We want to democratize the traditional model by giving editorial control to the people who use the site, not those who run it."
— Reddit FAQ 2005
"We've always benefited from a policy of not censoring content"
— u/kn0thing 2008
"A bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web? I bet they would like it," he replies. [reddit]'s the digital form of political pamplets."
— u/kn0thing 2012
"We will tirelessly defend the right to freely share information on reddit in any way we can, even if it is offensive or discusses something that may be illegal."
— u/reddit 2012
"We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it. Not because that's the law in the United States - because as many people have pointed out, privately-owned forums are under no obligation to uphold it - but because we believe in that ideal independently, and that's what we want to promote on our platform. We are clarifying that now because in the past it wasn't clear, and (to be honest) in the past we were not completely independent and there were other pressures acting on reddit. Now it's just reddit, and we serve the community, we serve the ideals of free speech, and we hope to ultimately be a universal platform for human discourse (cat pictures are a form of discourse)."
— u/yishan 2012
"Neither Alexis [u/kn0thing] nor I created Reddit to be a bastion of free speech"
>— u/spez 2015
They banned a load of female-centred subreddits too, a couple of years back. The moderators of these subs then set up their own Reddit-like forum at https://ovarit.com, with a mission to uplift women's voices, especially on topics where they had been censored on Reddit.
Reddit also discriminates specifically against homosexual women, in similar ways: /r/lesbians is a pornography forum dedicated to the male gaze, while /r/actuallesbians is filled with men pretending to be women. Any lesbian subreddit that is created exclusively for actual female women to use gets swiftly banned, and similarly for comments that support being exclusively same-sex attracted. This sort of 'progressive' misogyny and homophobia is increasingly common in other forums too, not just on Reddit.
The common theme of all this banning and censorship is users not toeing the line towards a particular set of US-centric political viewpoints that are currently popular amongst those who call themselves 'progressive'. Though in reality their views and actions are regressive and authoritarian.
Accurate: https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/actualles...
The connecting thread in all these bans is that if you're not in the niche of American 'polite society' that they market to, you can expect to be tolerated only to give an illusion of plurality to the site.
The aftermath of r/jailbait getting shutdown was also the shutdown of any adults only subreddit focused on "smaller" women. I helped mod xxsmall and other small breasted / lithe / petite focused adult subreddits at the time. Reddit didn't care that we explicitly stated everyone must be of legal age, and had age verification in place for the gone wild style subreddits. I put in a lot of my spare time trying to make sure illegal shit didn't end up on our pages and banning people trying to maliciously post images to get us taken down.
It didn't help that this was around the same time Australia started talks of banning A-Cup adult actresses as part of a conservative "protect the kids" push.
In the end they blanket banned all of the small breast subreddits because of the shitheads over at r/jailbait. Some of which had stories from the girls posting about how they never felt attractive or realized they'd actually get attention from men/women online because of their smaller shapes. Not just younger women either, we had women in their 40/50's saying the same thing.
I still think killing off r/jailbait was needed. I just wish they hadn't kneejerk banned every legit sub because they were being blasted in the main stream media. Eventually most of these subreddits came back with new moderation/names and I gave up on subreddit modding because it was stressful trying to fend off illegal posts.
I'm sorry, providing a space for pedophiles to find each other and share content to build community is not 'useful'.
> When we snuff out a particular bit of speech we should have to think about it, however br
Reddit is not the government. They can't "snuff out" speech. They have no social responsibility to provide a community space to pedophiles.
Has it ever happened?
There was a satellite piracy site operator where Google got a legal request to Doxx them for a lawsuit. But since Google notified the operator, they successfully got a lawyer to convince the judge to quash it for $7k under 1st amendment. The operator now thought they were in the clear.
“Tragically as I was soon to find out, none of this even mattered.”
“Nobody else even bothered to tell me. And by nobody else I mean: Paypal, eBay, 3 domain registrars, merch makers, VPN providers, and every other online service I had used with that email in the last five years.”
They were still fucked.
That same fellow did a ground up compromise of a previously (officially) uncompromised system that’s still in use:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ConTalks/comments/5kw4m5/how_do_i_c...
Someone rewrote shreddit in Rust[2]
I'm currently rewriting it in JS for Deno. Still in early stages so not worth posting the mess that it's in now.
As soon as I'm finished with mine I'm going to setup a cron job and have it delete any reply older than a year (with some exceptions you can set either by subreddit or by comment ids). I don't have any comments about pirating so I'm not worried about that, but I also don't think comments on social media need to last forever, especially with all of the data-mining being done on them (remember Cambridge Analytica). I think something similar exists for Twitter and Facebook but I don't remember their names at the moment, maybe someone here does.
Even if someone wanted to use your opinions against you, there is no way for them to figure out what your opinions are because, again, there is no value in talking about your actual opinions. They are already established. There is nothing more you are willing to learn from them, so there is no remaining communication value.
Once you have accepted an opinion as your own, however, you have had to believe that you understand it to the greatest extent possible and spending more time learning about it is going to be unfruitful. As such, there is no remaining value in talking about the opinions you actually hold.
Only the opinions you don't hold are those you are going to share, as those are the ones that are still out there able to be learned from. They are merely hypothetical, and are likely to be contradictory as you explore different angles.
Indeed, you may come to hold those once-hypothetical opinions in time as you learn more about it. As that happens, the value in sharing them will diminish. There is good reason why we don't spend our days sharing that we believe "1+1=2" and "the sky is blue". One's own opinion has no communication value.
So, what is to be gained by censoring a hypothetical opinion that may not be held by anyone and certainly not you? If it were your opinion you wouldn't have to worry about censoring it because there would be no value in sharing it in the first place.
Is there no such thing as a strongly held opinion vs. a weakly held opinion? Different people might change their mind given different amounts of contrary information. I don't see the value in reducing this process to a binary divide between "actually held opinions" and "opinions not held at all".
Also, even if someone does hold an unshakeable opinion, I don't see why they couldn't express it while trying to convince someone else of their opinion, unless they don't care what opinion anyone else holds. And there are many people who (seemingly) care quite a lot about what other people think.
Yes, there are the opinions you hold and opinions you are exploring. This was established previously. You can't explore opinion without hypothesis.
> Different people might change their mind given different amounts of contrary information.
During the exploratory phase. Once opinion is established in your mind, you will tune out further information as no longer being interesting. Collecting information is hard work and there is only so much energy to spare, so it is prudent for the brain to tune out information that it deems no longer useful. If you have formed an opinion, the mind has declared that further information is no longer useful.
> I don't see why they couldn't express it while trying to convince someone else of their opinion
Functionally it could be done, but what is to be gained? The time and effort required is in competition with other things one can do with their time, so there has to be a value proposition.
> And there are many people who (seemingly) care quite a lot about what other people think.
Sure. That's what exploration is all about. If there isn't probing other people to find out how they respond, how are you going to derive the learning that provides the value for your effort? But you are only going to care so long as you haven't formed an opinion to call your own. If you are certain you've got things figured out, there is nothing else you can gain from continuing.
For one, someone can care about others' well-being. If Alice is of the firm opinion that binge-drinking is bad for one's health, then does she have nothing to gain in trying to convince her good friend Bob that he should stop binge-drinking? Is the whole concept of giving advice an illusion?
Or in politics. If you believe that a certain oppressive tyrant ought to be overthrown, then would you not try to convince other people of this, so that you can form a large enough conspiracy to carry out that goal?
(For other political movements, simply replace "an oppressive tyrant" with some abstract idea, e.g., car ownership, or monopolies, or whatever. That might seem silly, but humans are not creatures of pure reason, and nothing's stopping people from valuing any arbitrary thing.)
Or for personal gain. If a candidate for some political office runs a campaign telling everyone why they should vote for him, then is he really doing that for the sole purpose of probing for reasons why he shouldn't be voted into office?
Or just for fun. Are there not people who simply love to hear the sound of their own voice, as the saying goes?
I don't deny that people sometimes express opinions that they don't hold strongly, but you seem to be suggesting that there is never (or hardly ever) any good reason to express an opinion that one does hold. There are all sorts of situations, especially in politics, where someone thinks it would be better if others were of the same opinion.
The solitary activity of comment writing on Reddit is an unusual way to let Bob, a good friend, know about his binge drinking. I wonder if the context of Reddit got lost somewhere along the way? It could be that social interaction brings additional value potential that would justify sharing formed opinions in a social setting, but that is beyond the topic being discussed here.
> If you believe that a certain oppressive tyrant ought to be overthrown, then would you not try to convince other people of this, so that you can form a large enough conspiracy to carry out that goal?
There are numerous subreddits claiming millions of users who appear, based on comments, to share a common political goal that goes against a status quo. The numbers are there. The will alleges to be there. Why haven't they already risen up and done something about what they are supposedly rallying around? Perhaps it is because the opinions they express are only being explored?
And this speaks again to Reddit, and forum going in general, being a solitary activity. Realistically, there is little difference between Reddit and ChatGPT. You state your bit, maybe get a response back, and hope that response will contain some nuggets of wisdom from which you can derive some value. Possibly there are people on the other end writing those responses, but would it matter if there wasn't? The experience doesn't depend on it. If there are people, that's just an implementation detail.
If you are hard-lined "binge drinking is bad for one's health" and nothing is going to change your mind about that fact, are you going to tell ChatGPT that? If not, why would you tell Reddit? What are you going to gain from it? Why would you waste your time? Indeed, if you are unsure, only postulating the opinion of binge drinking being harmful as something to explore, then the responses provide a learning opportunity. That brings value and can make it worth your time.
> then is he really doing that for the sole purpose of probing for reasons why he shouldn't be voted into office?
A hypothetical can only take us so far, but presumably the candidate hypothesizes that they can win on certain qualities, but they don't know for sure and are throwing it out there to try and find out. Once the vote is done, the results are in, and the outcome is known I suspect continued sharing of that opinion diminishes. What additional value would be gained in continuing to share it at that point?
> Why haven't they already risen up and done something about what they are supposedly rallying around? Perhaps it is because the opinions they express are only being explored?
People are lazy, and turning public sentiment into a functioning movement is hard work. This does not stop the big political belief systems from including an evangelizing component, the idea that it would be best for as many people as possible to know about and be in support of the belief. Otherwise, they don't grow very big in the first place!
> If you are hard-lined "binge drinking is bad for one's health" and nothing is going to change your mind about that fact, are you going to tell ChatGPT that? If not, why would you tell Reddit? What are you going to gain from it? Why would you waste your time? Indeed, if you are unsure, only postulating the opinion of binge drinking being harmful as something to explore, then the responses provide a learning opportunity. That brings value and can make it worth your time.
My point is that someone might want fewer people getting harmed by binge drinking, even if the victims are complete strangers. So they post their earnest belief on Reddit that binge drinking is bad, backing it up with some reasoning, so that a few more people in the world might be convinced not to binge drink. That is, someone might feel some sense of pride when they help strangers by informing them of (what they see as) the truth, so they consider their time well spent.
> A hypothetical can only take us so far, but presumably the candidate hypothesizes that they can win, but they don't know for sure and are throwing it out there to try and find out.
Sure, the candidate doesn't know for sure that they'll win, but that's beside the point. Your idea would suggest that they aren't even sure if they want people to vote for them, and they only ask people to vote for them in order to probe for reasons why they shouldn't be voted for. I'm saying that they might earnestly want to win, so they campaign because they want to get as many votes as possible!
Overall, it just seems like an incredible claim that no one ever posts strongly-held opinions on Reddit primarily because they want to convince others. There are all sorts of reasons why someone might want to convince people of things! Also, I really wouldn't discount the possibility of people who like talking in its own right, as a way to spend free time. Not everyone is looking to optimize every minute of their day being maximally profuctive.
So, again, what's the value proposition?
Additionally, why do these forum users generally appear to crave feedback? An evangelical who claims to have it all figured out will do their best to avoid feedback to not have their message called into question.
And, more generally, if you really do think you have it all figured out, what is the feedback going to tell you? What is the value proposition in consuming it? There is a cost to that too.
> That is, someone might feel some sense of pride when they help strangers by informing them of (what they see as) the truth, so they consider their time well spent.
Is it conceivable that the same person would send the same type of commentary to ChatGPT?
> Your idea would suggest that they aren't even sure if they want people to vote for them, and they only ask people to vote for them in order to probe for reasons why they shouldn't be voted for.
Maybe. Like I said, you can only take a hypothetical so far. What an imagined person might think is only limited by your imagination of that person. I am not sure this can go anywhere. If you have real world experience in running for a political position, I'd love to hear about it.
> but many people love to socialize with others for its own sake.
It was recognized earlier that social interaction could potentially offer additional benefits not spoken of here, but as it is beyond the topic of conversation it is not something that has garnered attention to consider. But sending comments out to the digital void is not socialization. It is very much a solitary activity.
Well, if you have a big ego, you might simply crave hearing other people agree with you, or congradulating you, or cheering you on. People are emotionally motivated like that.
Alternatively, an evangelist might express their unshakeable belief for constructive feedback, not on why they might want to question their belief, but instead on how they can better present that belief. Presentation skills are very important for a committed evangelist to know! More generally, someone can post a comment on Reddit, some parts of which they do not question, just to introduce other parts that they want real feedback on.
> Is it conceivable that the same person would send the same type of commentary to ChatGPT?
Definitely, if they didn't know it was ChatGPT. Perhaps not, if they did. The emotional element comes from imagining the hypothetical lives of the audience members being improved from their knowledge. Especially with smaller communities, where one might already know something or another about the usual commentariat, to build a seed for the imagination.
> But sending comments out to the digital void is not socialization. It is very much a solitary activity.
You may feel that way, and it may very well be true, but I don't think that has sunk in on an emotional level for most people. Compare with parasocial relationships, which are well-documented. The celebrity does not care about a random person watching online, but this does not stop that person from harboring an illusion of intimacy.
Similarly, a person expressing their beliefs in public without wanting to learn anything is likely building a persona of the invisible audience, and becoming emotionally invested in that persona. This is only reinforced if someone occasionally gets bits of emotionally positive feedback from a few audience members.
So I'd say that there is usually no value proposition in terms of material gain for publically posting on Reddit. Instead, the value mostly lies in the feelings one gets when talking to the imagined audience persona.
Why, then, so much attention towards controversial topics? Opinions that are not considered controversial should garner the most agreement to swell that ego. My opinion that "1+1=2" is, aside from those being contrarian for comedic effect, going to see nearly everyone agree! Now that I said it the agreements are going to pour in and my head is going to grow so big that the US military is going to scramble their fighter jets to shoot me down.
Except, I'm not sure it works like that. I expect we don't continually get comments like "Guess what: 1+1=2!" because agreement towards your opinion doesn't stimulate the ego. Where the ego does come into play is when you haven't fully formed an opinion but are starting to feel more confident in a hypothesis you have been working on. The agreement strengthens support for the pathways that are on the verge of becoming established but are not yet established and validates the effort. Similarly, disagreement leaves one to feel like the effort has been all for not, hence the negative feelings. This doesn't happen when you have formed an opinion, though. You telling me that I am wrong and that "1+1=3" will generate no feelings. I couldn't care less. Right or wrong, I'm convinced that "1+1=2" and there is nothing you can say to change that opinion in me and it bores me that I had to resort to talking about it as an example for the sake of greater value of this discussion.
Aside from the Reddit thing, my young child is currently in the process of learning about numbers and simple arithmetic. Them stating their opinion that "1+1=2" and me responding with "Yes, that's right!" clearly does result in some kind of pleasurable stimulation. They are still learning and haven't fully solidified the understanding – but I doubt this will last. Once there is confidence and the opinion is formed as their own, I expect it will be met with "Duh. Of course it is right! Why are you patronizing me?", not the joy from validation seen today.
> The emotional element comes from imagining the hypothetical lives of the audience members being improved from their knowledge.
Without reasonable proof of lives being improved, wouldn't this person be working on the hypothesis of a message being able to improve lives, using the exploration of sharing that opinion to see if it manifests into something that can transition from hypothesis to the person's actual opinion? I expect after one is certain, with no way to convince them otherwise, that they have helped people (or didn't help people) they will move on.
> but I don't think that has sunk in on an emotional level for most people.
Is that a necessary precondition?
> Instead, the value mostly lies in the feelings one gets
That much is true. The learning value that comes from presenting a hypothetical opinion does not provide material gain. The value is very much derived from the warm and fuzzy feelings that are generated as opinions are in the process of being formed.
What I am saying is that after the opinion is adopted, those feelings go away, and it is no longer interesting to share or discuss the opinion that has been formed. That is with at least in respect to using Reddit. Whether or not there is other extrinsic value seen in social experiences where formed options are shared has not been explored and is beyond the discussion here.
I don't know if there is a way to have a forum-like reddit clone that would allow comments to be truly deleted and forgotten. Heck, I'd like it if there was infrastructure available for sites to verify GnuPG-signed comments.
I think reddit has nerfed pushshift.
One thing we all know about Reddit is that their search is garbage.
Reddit (devs) are saying they don't do this, but are other companies doing this? Reddit kinda confirmed that this is at least possible by announcing they want money from parties that are using their API at scale.
Removal of the comment itself matters, nobody owes you information forever.
imagine going to your account section and seeing the 'worth' of your comments
if you want to delete your account, you would be offered that amount for the site to be able to keep your output
It's more of a "you might not be able to". Even with all the archival things that target Reddit currently, plenty of accounts who purge their comments squeeze through just fine.
If you post on the internet, yes, you do need to understand it's not sitting in one database table somewhere. It doesn't mean it's futile to try and clean up though.
That said, our stories are nowhere near representative of why it's important to be able to delete comments. ;P
Of course these days with AI able to do analysis of everything we've ever wrote, duplicate our speech, and mimic our look, we may find out that leaving all this information in public was a foolish mistake.
- Cardinal Richelieu
This was going through my head when I recently deleted 15 years of Facebook data. I am not the same person I was when I was 18.
People's ability to preserve their own safety and identity is important. Obscure knowledge can be reproduced; people cannot be.
You would still have to take additional measures if you post in some communities with any regularity.
You do not need permission to withdraw your side of a conversation you engaged in.
We are getting to a point where the 'approved' really narrow consensus moves so fast you never know what will be used to harass you in the future.
On another note the Reddit admins wouldn't ban them despite them literally and repeatedly scamming money from users by pretending to need food. Despite them also posting at the same time about the weed they just bought. And also harrasing me and others across the site. One of the admins kept pushing it for me but apparently the team in charge thought it was a difficult case and only sent them a warning. The whole thing was just disgusting.
My account is 15 years old and I've been manually doing this for some time now.
A few years ago, I had a comment get upvoted to the top of a popular thread in a major sub, but it had some mildly identifiable information about myself, so I deleted it.
A few months later, Reddit had this personal "year in review" page you could click through, shamelessly similar to Spotify's year in review (I have't seen it in recent years so I think they stopped doing it).
For "most popular comment" surprise, surprise, it was the comment I deleted, there in full text.
After this I started using the method described above: editing every comment I make, saving a blank string, and then deleting. I usually do this once a week. It's tedious, but at least I can reasonably assume my comments are actually deleted.
I would much prefer comments here to automatically delete after some reasonable time period (a week?), or provide an API I can use to go in and scrub every so often. But HN decided that it doesn't work that way so I live with it. I don't really see how the site benefits from keeping comments alive forever. Do a significant number of people really go back and read comments on articles from 10 years ago?
>I would much prefer comments here to automatically delete after some reasonable time period (a week?)
you're more than welcome to build that and release it to see how much traction it would get. but it's also weird to think that the responses to questions that are valid to post now would not still be relevant in the future for people to come back to (or find for the first time via search). if your response is truly not worthy for future reading, i would have to ask if it is really worth now. if you're that concerned about having that response associated to you, then i'd again say maybe it is best not being made at all.
As far as I know, this was said a very long time ago and is assuredly not true anymore.
Australian defamation law is already extremely plaintiff friendly and has a significant chilling effect on free speech here, especially as against the rich and powerful who can afford to threaten lawsuits against anybody who wrongs them
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021A00076
Or something else?
In the case of a person making a defamatory post, that person can be sued and reddit would likely be compelled to identify them to the best of its ability.
Court Protects Redditors’ Right to Anonymous Speech in Piracy Case
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35772583 (4 comments)
Apparently having a conversation on planning a crime between 2 people can result in a charge of conspiracy. So therefore, does talking about ways to steal would come under conspiracy to commit a crime?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/what-constitutiona...
Orange, not grey.
a. Designate an agent for service of copyright claims (i) on their website and (ii) in an online filing with U.S. Copyright Office (§ 512(c)(2)); and
b. Write, adopt and post on its website a “repeat infringer policy.” (§ 512(i)(1)(A).)
c. Set up internal processes and procedures to manage the notice-and-take-down process (§ 512(c)(1) (C)); and
d. Reasonably implement its repeat infringer policy.
So that is basically what this case comes down to. Did the ISP fulfill its requirements to qualify for safe harbor exception. It sounds like the plaintiff wanted to use these reddit comments as evidence the ISP failed to reasonably implement its repeat infringer policy.
A small sample size of users means very little. Meanwhile it might be easier to compel testimony on actual policies as enforced right now. If they are justified it would be like standing in front of the ax murderer holding the bloody ax in one hand and a newly collected head in the other and asking for his cell phone history.
On the other side of the equation there are folks who have been permanently kicked off the only broadband option they have at their house in poorsville because the kids downloaded movies. Such policies can already be pretty punitive to some folks while other more savvy folks simply use a VPN and avoid issues. All in all not a very effective policy.