The community is not a coherent block. To give the impression that the criticism stems from an organized group of people that applaud and tolerate death threats is the equivalent of binding it to a strawman and lighting it on fire with gasoline.
The day I discovered I could do that quickly made Reddit my favorite site on the web (/r/NFL, /r/homeimprovement, /r/television, etc).
I'd love to see a discovery feature similar to that of Pinterest built into the signup process that algorithmically signs new users up for subreddits most related to their interests.
I used Pinterest some in the early days, but I'll avoid like the plague, now.
The worst part is all they did is intercept the search result for someone else's website and force me to give them all sort of marketing data they can sell in order to get it.
Gross.
But isn't that really a huge indictment of their ability to run the site? If the users who really like the site I'll do it by avoiding the horridness of the main promoted content, doesn't that signal some sort of failure in their curation or moderation?
How does a si but isn't that really a huge indictment of their ability to run the site? If the users who really like the site I'll do it by avoiding the horridness of the main promoted content, doesn't that signal some sort of failure of their curation and moderation?
How does a site like that survive long-term?
Global curation could help reddit, but the site actually needs very little of it. It can survive without main promoted content at all.
It might be better to ask users a series of questions about their interests when they sign up, and then create each one a personalized list
"Ellen asked me to point out that the sweeping majority of redditors didn’t do this, and many were incredibly supportive. Although the incredible power of the Internet is the amplification of voices, unfortunately sometimes those voices are hateful."
Simply put, you will find trolls and people writing death threats wherever you look. These people do not exactly discriminate.
They're weak hiveminds. Individuals, if they exist at all, are rare and want nothing to do with the rest of you.
When foreign hiveminds come into contact, one attempts to absorb the other, and failing that, to destroy the other. Memes are highly infectious, and so it's often important to police memes to make sure no foreign ones disrupt the hivemind's self.
One or another hivemind sent off a few spurious signals, and a few highly excited human units acted on those. The hiveminds in question don't feel responsible because they didn't intend to send those signals (or want to pretend they didn't).
> Ellen asked me to point out that the sweeping majority of redditors didn’t do this, and many were incredibly supportive. Although the incredible power of the Internet is the amplification of voices, unfortunately sometimes those voices are hateful.
Like any popular site, Reddit attracts everything from enlightened discussions to 4chan-level casual trolls (and worse). Pointing out the issues with threats and indicating that the community could be better without individuals who would publicly threaten the life of another person seems very reasonable to me.
Actions like the banning of subreddits for the actions of a few bad actors belie the notion that this is how you and they describe it.
If you don't have a coherent content policy -- and no sane person could argue that Reddit does -- then you're better off with none at all.
Which do you believe is the correct explanation? Can you see any other possibilities?
Because that's what the admins have basically said, by their actions.
Nope, the Reddit admins just haven't closed those subreddits yet. But they will. They've closed the child porn subreddits, they've closed the revenge porn subreddits, they've closed the hate groups that bleed out into the larger internet. r/coontown will be closed, too. It hasn't yet, which is a shame, but if you read into that fact that the reddit admins approve of it, then be prepared to be disappointed in a few months when it gets closed, too.
Reddit's original policy, for better or for worse, was "anything that isn't illegal." They had to add one or two things to that over the years but they stuck to that.
Reddit's policy then became, unofficially, "trust us to get rid of the crap." That sounds fine, but it has problems:
1. it's not the original policy. HN has a "trust us" policy and it works great but it's always had that. HN has never been billed as "come say what you want." Changing the policy is a bait and switch to the old community.
2. It was never admitted to. While switching to the new policy, the official line was that the old policy was still in place.
3. It requires positive social capital. Remember Philip Greenspun's infamous article describing the VCs at ArsDigita as "a group of nursery school children who've stolen a Boeing 747 and are now flipping all the switches trying to get it to take off"[1]? That's what the reddit admin has been like for months, and it leads to negative social capital. Some guy was shadowbanned but didn't know it for years, patiently posting in subreddits all along. The CEO didn't use the company's only product.
If you've ever experienced a dysfunctional internet community -- and who hasn't -- you recognize the patterns of decisions made in a hurry to stop whomever is immediately yelling at you and then trying to justify it with whatever they can cobble together afterwards, and that explanation will be completely unsuitable for the next crisis which will require yet another made up explanation.
Building a community requires trust from the community members, especially the community members who are volunteers donating their time to help the long-term health of it. If the people in charge consistently act like they don't know what the fuck they are doing the volunteers quickly feel put upon.
The hardest part of managing a user community is dealing with all the users.
The subreddit was filled with photographs that were either a) creepshots taken off the street without the subject's permission and b) friends-only Facebook posts shared with the public without the subject's permission (which is a violation of Facebook's TOS).
Then, on top of that, they were harassing imgur staff members for enforcing their ToS.
CoonTown, as disgusting as it is, wasn't doing that, at least not in the sheer volumes of numbers FPH was. Most of that sub consisted of making racist statements about news articles and misinterpreted statistics.
If there were in fact some legal concerns, then I stand corrected.
Ellen got so much shot for the "we're banning actions not ideas" quote (in this thread even) yet here's an example of it being used - leaving absolutely vile subs live because they don't brigade and banning subs when they do brigade and she's getting shit for that too.
Pick.
No matter how much you dislike someone, death threats are always the wrong side of the red line.
And people who should have had the sense to see there were vile pighumpers in their midst did not moderate their nastiness.
"I'm convinced that there is a highly vocal group (of young men, most likely) that are hell-bent on breaking Internet communities and even corporeal communities with their grotesqueries. And when they're challenged, they howl "but you're censoring my free speech!""
why do you think that internet communities need to be so heavily moderated?