Hacker News Reader

> 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.

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.

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.