------
Twitter and Reddit would both be examples of the types of platforms you're referring to, that benefit from this outrage. And neither seems to want to maximize it.
In the case of Twitter, they prompt you to rephrase your Tweet if the algo thinks it's likely to offend people. If you post too much of that type of stuff, you get a form of lite-shadowban.
Reddit has for years coached people to 'remember the human' and backs it up with various rules and bans. They want people to treat each other well.
Is either platform successful in their attempts? Arguably, no. But that wasn't my point, I was addressing the claim that they seek to maximize outrage.
Are you saying that Reddit is a good example? Because that would be a laughable point to make
Yes. They banned the Donald Trump subreddit. That one subreddit produced more outrage than probably everything else in the history of Reddit combined. And they banned it. A company seeking to maximize outrage would not do that.
Just because there's a limit to the outrage tolerated, it doesn't mean that outrage isn't part of the plan.
That's where the goalposts are and that's where they are going to stay: whether or not they seek to maximize outrage.
So ya, that interpretation is the logical one. If your business model depends on something, you would be optimizing for maximizing it over time.
Please do not add any extra words to that, thus shifting the goalposts. Here you have added the word 'profit'. I never said anything about profit.
I argued that they do not.
I don't think it's pedantic at all to say the goalposts are whether or not they maximize outrage.
I totally understand that the word's 'Reddit' and 'Twitter' and 'Trump' are going to trigger people into wanting to talk more broadly about those topics. There are lots of other places they can go and do that. I had a very specific and narrowly defined argument.
We're not disagreeing. I wasn't speaking to what's in their heart, only to what they actually do.
You yourself said neither platform was successful in their attempts, that's because those "attempts" are there for show. They can't reduce outrage without reducing their profits.
Then you're wrong. They don't just pretend to care, they take actions. I've already given several examples.
> You yourself said neither platform was successful in their attempts
No, I did not say that. I said 'arguably' and that was precisely so people wouldn't try to turn this into a debate about how good they are at it. I said they try and they absolutely do try.
> because those "attempts" are there for show
And now you're contradicting yourself. You said they only pretend to care and now you said they make attempts. You keep flip flopping on what it is that you are even saying.
I can't read minds. Evidently you can and that's an awesome skill, congratulations. But everything I've said refers only to what they actually do. And what they do is to take actions that are clearly detrimental to maximizing outrage. Something you've just agreed with, if we extract all of your mind reading voodoo magic.
"I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!" 06 Jan 21
I can't link to the tweet. But it has been reinstated on Twitter after the acquisition.
If that's an argument, it doesn't change anything about what I said.
I don't hear any dog whistles. That's probably because I'm a socialist and not a "dog". I'm not the one focusing on undesirable elements in society. I see a lot of struggling poor people though. People who vote for con-men populists out of desperation.
You're a fool if you think that the way reddit handles content moderation does not create angry people.
please keep the goalposts right there and address only that one specific argument. as it's the only argument i'm making.
See the person above us:
>You're a fool if you think that the way reddit handles content moderation does not create angry people.
I never said that. And they're making personal attacks based on this thing I never said. That isn't what you just described.
Tell that to the volunteers over at /r/BanFemaleHateSubs
Reddit does about the minimum it can to avoid signifiant media backlash.
I don't know about reddit enough and just struggling to even guess the context here.
Reddit is extremely massive. With uber millions of people on it. And anyone can make a subreddit about anything. And they get extremely specific. Like someone might make one called r/FuckHNpedants for people who dislike all of the pedants on this site. And they post screenshots of our comments and mock us.
So clearly there are going to be people who make all sorts of random subreddits related to women. Lets say some guys didn't like women with freckles. They might make a subreddit showing pictures of women with freckles and bash them. And drill down a few more levels and go in all directions.
Then you have these other people who get triggered by that sort of content and demand it all be removed from Reddit. They make subreddits like that demanding it all be removed. Historically, they need to get featured in a bunch of media before Reddit does anything. They then ban a bunch of them and make a new rule.
>Is either platform successful in their attempts? Arguably, no. But that wasn't my point, I was addressing the claim that they seek to maximize outrage.