The Truth About Reddit | Hacker News Reader

The Truth About Reddit

adage.com

89 pointsfollowmylee80 comments

>You know what? Humans, especially during times of crisis and confusion, speculate. They do it offline and, in 2013, they increasingly do it online. The fact of the matter is that one of the Boston suspects (later revealed to be Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) seen in the early grainy surveillance-video stills released by the FBI did resemble Tripathi.

I dont really understand this section. Is the author trying to defend reddit's holier art thou attitude towards the world and their tendency to stick their nose in matters they shouldnt in the name of internet justice?

>And Reddit actually has much better checks and balances in place -- thanks to a combination of the upvote system and moderator intervention.

This is just plain false. Subreddits are not moderated by reddit employees, only by the people who founded the subreddit and whoever they choose to moderate the subreddit with them. This is why hate groups like /r/atheism and fox-news-tier biased news subreddits like /r/poltics can exist. Hell, the only visible admin-intervention I've ever heard of on reddit was when they took down the child porn reddits, and even that required -two- pieces by major news outlets on how reddit was hosting child porn.

The upvote/downvote system is literally only useful for propagating viral/interesting content. Far too many people are relying on reddit as a news source nowadays, and thanks to the upvote/downvote system, all it takes is 51% disapproval for an article to virtually disappear. Since everyone uses the downvote button to say "i dont like this content" rather than "this content isnt good/isnt relevant", you get lots of wonderful skews. This is why /r/poltics has such a intense liberal bias - all it takes is a 51% of the users to disapprove of an article that supports republicans in order for the submission to disappear from view of everyone else. Imagine how horrible the news would be if an entire political viewpoint is censored just because the majority believes differently. That's news on reddit.

> Subreddits are not moderated by reddit employees, only by the people who founded the subreddit and whoever they choose to moderate the subreddit with them

That's still moderation - the article didn't say that the moderation was from admins or reddit staff. Also, there are reddit-wide rules[0] that apply regardless of sub.

Also, r/atheism isn't a hate group. There's plenty of asshats and the occasional hateful post, but it's not a hate group in general. Take a look at the sub[1] on any given day, and most of it isn't hateful

[0]: http://www.reddit.com/rules/

[1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/

There are days where it comes pretty close, and it's pretty embarrassing to share any kind identity with them.

As a kind of olive branch though, let's just say "hate groups like r/mensrights".

Yeah, I would never identify as an "r/atheist".

As far as I'm concerned, letting a bunch of people you don't know moderate the pages that constitute the face of your website is as bad as no moderation at all.

Just because there's an implicit agreement that subreddit moderators need to obey reddit's rules doesn't mean they have to. If someone does something like posting someone's personal information, the little report button on their post goes to the moderators, who the site admins have trust to actually delete infringing posts. If someone posts something bad and the moderator is half assed or doesn't care, there's no way to get that post removed unless one of the admins stumble upon it or if you were to send the admins a message (I dunno if this would even be reliable).

What does it mean to know someone?

Well, that's as far as you're concerned and you're entitled to your unsubstantiated opinion. From what I've seen, the mods do an excellent job of upholding the rules. The mods for the major subs (ie. the "face" of reddit) all get rid of personal info very quickly to the point that I've never seen it.

Mods put in a lot of work, without which reddit would be worse off.

I just can't see how anyone can possibly take that perspective. Do you mostly frequent the mega subreddits? I mean, r/politics is probably unmoderate-able by literally any method. But the small subs are often very well-run. People who take a niche interest have an inherent respect for others of the same persuasion and desire their respect in return, which leads to very even-handed moderating in most places. Examples to the contrary (like the whole r/starcraft vs r/starcraft2 thing are few and far between).

I say all this as a guy who doesn't even visit the site anymore. Haven't logged in in months.

OK, easy example. Top item right now on r/atheism (only sample taken, you couldn't pay me to visit that subreddit):

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1e0vcv/if_there_is_...

A few comments down (above the fold on even a tiny monitor) we have this exchange:

Poster talking about his Holocaust-surviving grandfather (32 upvotes):

"My grandfather became a believer, but he didn't go all orthodox. He just believed. His reasoning was that if it weren't for god - he would have died many times during the war."

The reply, with 100 upvotes:

"Explanations like that are precisely what makes me hate religion. When people tell themselves these things, they betray an inner conviction that they are somehow better and more special than the countless men women and children who died at the hands of the Nazis. Makes me sick when people say things like that."

Link to comment: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1e0vcv/if_there_is_...

Is that supposed to be evidence of hate group? I don't see it.

So what's your point exactly? You could argue that that comment is insensitive, maybe even caustic... you could argue that the person who posted it is a bit of an ass probably. But how does any of that support the idea that /r/atheism is a "hate group"?

Circlejerk is probably a better term.

I agree "hate group" is stronger wording than would be appropriate (at any rate I don't want to quibble over a definition of that term) but I personally dislike intolerance - and I avoid forums[1] where it is considered upvote-worthy rhetoric.

There are insensitive and caustic comments everywhere - but when they are promoted through upvotes they discourage participation from affected individuals, breeding an environment where people only feel welcome if they subscribe to the dominant opinions. This results in a hollow echo chamber, which is not a satisfactory equilibrium for any forum trying to encourage healthy discussion.

1. Pre-internet definition of forum.

Fair enough. I also generally dislike intolerance, but I do have my areas where I find it hard to be tolerant. As an atheist, I have very little use for religion, religious dogma or teachings, etc., and I think that religion is actively harmful to society. So in that regard, I'm probably not so far removed from the guy you quoted above. But... I have no problem being tolerant of religious people in that I don't find much need to go around trying to convince everybody who isn't an atheist that they are an idiot, or doing the inverse of what I have having done to me - excessive proselytizing. I'm not out to convince Christians or Hindus or Muslims, etc. to disavow their faith. But when I come across situations (public education, for example) where religious beliefs start affecting things that I believe belong outside the bounds of religion, then I start to get a bit prickly about the whole thing as well.

I guess that was just a long-winded way of saying "it's complicated".

The other thing I'll add is this: I do visit /r/atheism, albeit infrequently. And you're probably right that it's not a particularly nice place to visit for people who are actively religious. That doesn't bother me only because I go in with the assumption that they aren't going to be there, aren't interested in being there, and that the few who do come in and stick around are the kind of people who can look past the stylistic stuff and still engage in a conversation which is - hopefully - enlightening for both sides.

I guess that was a long-winded way of saying "it's all about expectations".

Nonetheless, I can understand why you might shy away from /r/atheism. That place has it's own character and it's not for everybody. But what forum is?

/r/atheism is lightly moderated by purpose.

If you want the quality content, try this : http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/search?q=flair%3Aquality&...

That's one comment that you've cherry picked. If that's all it takes to make a site/section a hate group, then YouTube is a hate group.

While I don't necessarily subscribe to the same reasoning, I think I can suss out the reasoning that leads to this comment.

If you take faith because God kept you alive during the war as a foundation, a few conclusions can be drawn.

1) God did not want you to die in the war. Why else would surviving be proof of God?

2) God either wanted other people to die in the war, or having no preference either way for them at that point, let them die in the war.

3) God therefore has a preference for you over those that died, even if it's only to fulfill a future purpose.

I personally prefer not to make assumptions about what someone was thinking (but what they could have been thinking is another matter), but doing so at this level seems more a matter of poor assumptions and rigor to me than hate. In any case, a simple explanation of what is wrong with their reasoning along with the accusation of hate is warranted.

Keep in mind, the poster may truthfully be offended by these types of remarks, just as you ostensibly are by their response.

If you castigate them for their actions without even attempting to understand their reasoning, that makes you guilty of exactly the same thing you accuse them of in this instance.

I'd like to clarify that I am not personally offended by the quoted comment. I'm an atheist and know nobody who was affected in this way by the Holocaust/WW2.

I also think it's in very bad taste to speculate on why someone chose specific coping mechanisms to live with themselves after being one of the few to survive a horrific ordeal.

My primary complaint is not that someone said something like this, but that it was acceptable enough to everyone else in the community that it ended up one of the very first posts in the discussion.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond more fully; I didn't realize this would be so controversial.

> Is the author trying to defend reddit's holier art thou attitude towards the world

Reddit is not a person. What are you trying to say? That all of reddit's 400 million users have the same thoughts and attitude?

The author is trying to say that 400 million people is such a large sample of humanity that classing them as "redditors" instead of just "humans" doesn't add anything.

> Reddit is not a person. What are you trying to say? That all of reddit's 400 million users have the same thoughts and attitude?

Let's cut this crap right here. No one is saying they all have the same thoughts and attitudes. However, the entire site is built around users voting on what they like, and what they like is incredibly consistent to the point of clever users[0] gaining massive karma by using a bot to repost the top comments of old threads.

So no, reddit is not a person. It is, however, a collection of people who— for the most part, most of the time— are consistent in what they upvote.

[0]: http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/vefen/recap_...

    It was discovered that Trapped_in_Reddit was using 
    Karmadecay to search for old content as it was reposted 
    to Reddit. TiR would then copy the top comment of the old 
    thread, and re-use it in the new repost thread, as his 
    own comment - guaranteeing many upvotes for the re-used 
    comment.

The point is that humans in general are consistent in what they upvote and reddit at 400 million users is a reflection of humanity rather than of a small subgroup.

People have been looking at pictures of cats with sayings on them since the 1970's[1]

[1]: https://tytempletonart.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/hang-in-t...

So you're saying reddit has consistency in what it upvotes? That doesn't refute my point; it actually helps to refute yours.

I'm saying if you created a website called humannews and the entire population of the whole world contributed to it they would consistently upvote the same stuff and it would look almost exactly like reddit.

Humans, acting as a group, are very predictable and easily manipulated. There are many smaller communities on reddit where you find a bigger difference from the mean.

Yes, the politics there are biased, but the voting system still ultimately rewards facts -- the top comment for some BS liberal-bias-confirming story is often a debunking. So at least the vote system has that going for it.

hate group? I don't think you know what that term means. Maybe you should go check out the southern poverty law center that defines hate groups in the u.s. and meditate on your comment.

You plainly don't know what "defines" means.

Do you even use Reddit? You show an astonishing lack of understanding how it works for someone speaking in an authoritative voice. You're doing it wrong. Reddit is both worse in some regards and better in others than you understand it to be.

Lots of unsubstantiated assertions including the paranoid belief that r/atheism is hate speech. Why not go back to Fox and Disney, the real world must be an uncomfortable place for you.

> 3. If you regularly read Reddit, it makes the rest of the internet seem stale.

This is absolutely true; it's actually very interesting watching a new 'meme' make its way through the internet, and then the personal, pipeline. In the morning you'll see a reddit post, in the afternoon your friends will send you links to it, and your mom will mention it to you when you call her that night.

> it's not like Reddit is a major focus of corporate attention, either.

And thank $DEITY - the last thing we (it) need(s) is an owner trying to exploit it for another subsidiary's benefit.

On the other hand, it's been long speculated that Reddit is constantly being gamed, that corporate voting cabals are responsible for advertising content rising to the front page, and plenty of other news sources lift information without bothering to credit Reddit or its users.

A lot of those memes start off at 4chan or elsewhere before arriving on Reddit.

It is also gamed regularly, although I'm not sure how it compares to other popular sites. Upvotes are cheap to buy, and the type of feel-good stories that propagate are easy to mimic. Early up/down votes also have a hugely disproportionate effect, so cheating by getting friends/employees/social group to upvote your content is very effective - and has been abused blatantly enough by some companies to get banned altogether from the site.

> In the morning you'll see a reddit post, in the afternoon your friends will send you links to it, and your mom will mention it to you when you call her that night.

Increase that timescale to days for friends and weeks for parents, and you'll be about right.

It's interesting how some nerdy phrases/memes have made their way into the mainstream.

I was watching the UK Apprentice the other day and during the "boardroom" scene they were showing a group of stylish , upwardly mobile, adult business women arguing about whether or not something was an "epic fail".

The term "epic fail" is a reference to an obscure neogeo game called blazing star which I doubt any of these women would ever have played.

Guess where Reddit takes its memes from?

--itself a meme

I think this article may be overstating the point through its use of the term "mainstream media" to refer to sites like the Gawker Media network. Those guys have had the same business model for upward of a decade, and the only change the rise of sites like Reddit has made to that model is that it's now even easier for them to find content to syndicate.* When The Washington Post and the New Yorker and the BBC are sourcing their big stories from Reddit -- that is when I'd be alarmed.

*...err, syndicate implies paying the original content owners. Is there a word for credited and monetized reproduction of media without profit sharing?

Indeed. Nice little sleight of hand where the article reference "mainstream media" and then switches to "mainstream blog media" before citing any examples.

When The Washington Post and the New Yorker and the BBC are sourcing their big stories from Reddit -- that is when I'd be alarmed.

Just because they aren't grabbing stuff straight from Reddit (or hell, maybe they are, who knows?) doesn't mean Reddit doesn't influence those outlets as well. Look at Ryan Holiday's book[1] where he talks about "trading up the chain" and how lower tier sources influence the ones just above them, who influence the ones above them, etc. It seems like it's fairly possible for something to go from reddit -> minor blog -> major blog -> small local tv station -> AP wire -> Washington Post, or something similar.

Throw something on Reddit, buy a few upvotes, selectively support it with some bogus Wikipedia edits (sure, they'll be reverted eventually, but probably not until the damage is done) and submit yourself to "help" some journalists on HARO or Pitchrate and you can wreak all sorts of havoc on the news media.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_Me,_I%27m_Lying

Reddit's gradual decline has long ago tipped the scales. I was on reddit starting '08 I think, so I didn't see what the initial community was like, it was already fairly big by then, but nowhere near what it is today.

Just a few days ago, there was this trailer on the front page, for a movie with mecha robots fighting godzillas or something, and it was just... terrible. For whatever reason, maybe to get some reassurance, I read the comments. 3000 people falling over themselves wanking over it. In disbelief I loaded more and more comments just to try and find at least one negative comment. What are these people, 17 year-olds? And then it hit me. They ARE 17 year-olds.

I get it, subreddits blah blah blah, but there's no point. Sticking to subreddits destroys the sense of community which is so important for online forums. When the front page is dominated by teenagers, how long do you think others will stick to the site? Not to mention, having to log in to see your own specialized front page is a hassle when you're on many devices and don't really care enough to have an active account. Subreddit discovery is also too difficult, and then there's the whole filter bubble going on. I'd prefer a general purpose forum with higher quality people than hiding in some corner of a site dominated by teenagers.

More and more, HN is filling that purpose for me, with a healthy balance of tech and non-tech. I sort of wish there was a separation between "tech" and "general" though, so that the general discussions could expand without affecting the tech side of things.

> Sticking to subreddits destroys the sense of community which is so important for online forums

There are plenty of subreddits that have communities of their own.

Eh, I know plenty of 30-somethings who would be excited about robot godzilla movies.

Once something gets as big as reddit it's probably difficult to call it a "community" in any real sense. It's a community in the same way that usenet (in it's entirety) is a community.

Front page stuff is going to naturally be things that appeals to the largest cross section of people, you see this on HN too to an extent. A blog post talking about a novel application of an obscure algorithm languishes at the bottom with 10 comments whilst "popular blogger bashes Windows 8" gets to the top with ~300 comments.

I like to think of subreddits more as an easier alternative to installing phpBB than as a part of the whole.

Of course 30-somethings can like robot godzilla movies, but I think the force with which reddit upvotes stuff like Avengers and that Godzilla movie is an indication that the demographics have shifted to high-schoolers and early college instead of college and older.

Maybe you're right about subreddits, but I still think it'll hurt the subcommunities to be associated with a larger more immature whole. Now if reddit was just search engine for forums and each forum was more independent, that would be different.

What movie was it? If it was Pacific Rim as it sounds like, then that reaction could make sense. Guillermo Del Toro (Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth) is directing it.

It might not be that movie though. Still, have you seen the top raved about films on HN (there was a frontpage show hn on this recently)? Pretty obvious, typical choices. And there is nothing wrong with that. I'm cool with your reddit opinions. Just weird to use comments about a movie as an example against reddit and then swing over to endorsing HN.

It was Pacific Rim, but regardless of director (loved Pan's Labyrinth), this movie is clearly catering to the Michael Bay mindless action crowd which, while having fans of all ages, generally are targeted at teenagers. Maybe that's disputable? Personally I don't think so... Also, it's not so much that people loved the trailer, more that it was 3000 comments of people explaining how much they "just came", and not a single critical voice. I really doubt that would be the case on HN if it had been submitted/allowed here.

Yeah, HN probably wouldn't have gushing, juvenile, and repetitive comments, one after another like reddit did.

But still, the movies that are gushed about here are so typical and mainstream and many times mirror imdb's top movies that it really makes any case of trying to use movie opinions to show HN as better than Reddit rather silly.

The trailer was for Ender's Game. Considering the demographic of Reddit and the significance of that book to many in that demographic (including me), it is no surprise that the post was so popular.

I am not 17. I am 38.

I must have missed the mecha robots and godzillas in Ender's Game! Got no beef with that book, rather enjoyed it. The book was not about mindless action, so it's not the kind of movie I was talking about.

Ok. Then I missed the post you're talking about. My apologies. Nothing to see here....

From the submission: "Reddit's longtime tagline is 'The front page of the internet,' but it could just as easily be 'The crib sheet for weary bloggers who need to hit page-view quotas.'"

Yep. I've learned mostly to tune out any incidental mention I see of such "stories" in the news-seeking methods I use. I'm not a fan of linkbait-style stories wherever they come from.

"If you regularly read Reddit, it makes the rest of the internet seem stale."

I don't regularly read Reddit, so I don't put the hypothesis of this statement to the test, but I find plenty of interesting things to read online without Reddit, so I think I can live without Reddit.

"Simon Dumenco is the 'Media Guy' media columnist for Advertising Age."

I was expecting him to explain how Reddit might actually make money to recover the large investment that went into buying out Reddit from its founders, but I see no explanation of that in the article. It's still not clear to me how Reddit can ever become anything other than a community of free-riders.

Eh. My wife reads huffington post, my co-workers read reddit, and they see the viral-of-the-day first, it's just a fact.

Maybe I should have wrote the article. I have a 6 year badge on Reddit. In a few more months it'll roll over to be a 7 year badge.

Currently the various revenue streams:

1. Reddit Gold. Pay $3 for a month of pure margins for Reddit. In return the user gets account modifications, minor UX tweaks, ability to save links. Within the community it's often used to reward others for their posts or contributions. Often gets handed out in the larger more mainstream subreddits, especially AskReddit where the user generated content worthy of merit earn one or two or sometimes even ten little gold stars.

2. Ads. Self-service model, pay $20 and get crazy CPMs from a group of people that have adblock on.

3. Merchandise. T-shirts out the wazoo. Reddit makes $5 to $8 a shirt from official channels and various other knick knacks from redditgifts.com

4. Exchanges. You buy exchange credits to trade amongst each other in the community, things like socks, shirts, snacks. They keep exploring new verticals, now there are comics and a variety of other things.

Reddit has the same problem as Tumblr. They both essentially are feeds that's replaced Facebook for a big demographics that in turn has replaced television with said feeds.

Tumblr is embracing native ads, they opened an LA office to better interface with media buyers. They're shooting for the moon on closing 6 figure accounts to sell more native ads.

Reddit is going the less glamorous route.

We'll see who wins.

Most of the default subreddits could be classified not only as mainstream but also much diluted from what they were a few years ago. The way I use the site nowadays I entirely unsubscribed from most of the default subreddits.

In the smaller subreddits, karma doesn't matter as much as the rest of the site, which is what makes them better IMO. YMMV though.

a few years ago Reddit was a totally differant community. I think word got out and more and more people got into it and it evolved into what it has become...i still head over there once in a while, but most of the posts are not any good anyhow...reminds me of the old DIGG

Well-moderated subreddits can often rival HN for more niche topics.

The local subreddits for your city or sports team are great.

Plus openable and closable comment branches. Would love HN to add that...

Eh. I absolutely agree with this analysis for the major subreddits. The ecosystem and quality of content has definitely decreased.

However, I still find plenty of very high quality content in smaller subreddits. I wasn't a Digg user myself, but I suspect the subreddit aspect of reddit is the difference maker: folks seeking HQ content can stick around in the smaller corners while the more popular corners of reddit become mainstream.

And here's an anecdote: over the years, I've noticed more and more of my non-technical friends becoming reddit users. But most of them seem almost oblivious to the fact that there are subreddits outside of the ones you're subscribed to by default.

[EDIT] - spelling, thanks sliverstorm

* seeking

I completely agree. Reddit, for me, would be useless without niche subreddits. There was a time when you could go to the front page and find links to some really interesting articles or videos, but these days its "guess which celebrity I met and look at the funny pose they made." Thats fine and all but just not for me. However, I can still subscribe to smaller subreddits and have good discussions with people.

I'm finding the same thing with friends as well. The popularity of that site has jumped so much in the last two years or so. I feel like an old man.

completely true. some of the subreddits like /r/askhistorians are very good and the discussions there are awesome.

Digg V4 and the instant and immediately death of Digg is what brought reddit's eternal September. It isn't reminiscent of Digg, it is Digg in every way except layout.

I feel the decrease in quality is because the increase in the number of users. This makes that only the mediocre stuff to get front page.

I prefer HN

I find subreddits that have disabled image posting to be far more insightful and interesting. Once a subreddit allows image posting it degrades to memes, unless it's properly moderated.

This was not an informative article--quite superficial unless one knows nothing about Reddit.

> state-of-the-art-circa-1998, text-centric user interface

Said like it's a bad thing... reddit works great on less powerful devices, and doesn't crash my browser, unlike mainstream websites usually do (actually, almost always).

Dear "Mainstream" "Print" media: 1. if it only runs on later devices, it's not mainstream, it's niche; 2. print can be done with text, it doesn't need to be pictorial, video, audio, interactive, nor assembling 20 webservices and APIs from across the universe.

Reddit is also a great tool for marketing and sourcing talent.

I thought this would be able the misogyny, racism and paedophilia.

That's just the internet in general.

Just the internet?

People. It's made of people.

And yet reddit is corporate-owned, being hailed ITT as "the mainstream media", and there's plenty of evidence of senior Reddit moderators showing solidarity for the more criminal subreddits. Defending Reddit's dark side by comparing it to the wild world of message boards and comment sections is disingenuous: Reddit has a pervasive culture of "free speech" at all costs, and this is a consequence of it

>showing solidarity for the more criminal subreddits.

Like?

/r/picsofdeadkids /r/beatingwomen

I know the original remark was "more criminal", but are these criminal or tasteless and ugly?

Threads like these show the ongoing decline of hacker news.

I'm not sure what criteria you are using to form this opinion. I took a look at the front page from 2 years ago and it looks about the same to me.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110505135841/http://news.ycombi...

The truth about Reddit is that it's a clone of Digg, and Digg was a clone of Slashdot.

Hacker News is a clone of Slashdot too. Just giving credit where credit is due.

They are technical clones but not social clones. The technical part in some way is irrelevant.

It's a mix, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message

Certain commenting schemes lend themselves to "loudest retard gets most visibility" and some attempt to steer towards the opposite.

>FIRST

> The truth about Reddit is that it's a clone of Digg

Categorically false http://mixergy.com/no-reddit-didnt-copy-digg-heres-how-it-wa...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com