So Long, Reddit

http://braythwayt.com/2015/07/11/so-long-reddit.html

by jmduke • 11 years ago

88 65 11 years ago

minimaxir• 11 years ago

Here's the specific comment from Steve Huffman's AMA that raganwald is referring to: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3cxedn/i_am_steve_huf...

I think our approach to subreddits like that will be different. The content there is reprehensible, as I'm sure any reasonable person would agree, but if it were appropriately quarantined, it would not have a negative impact on other specific individuals in the same way FPH does. I want to hear more discussion on the topic. I'm open to other arguments. I want to be very clear: I don't want to ever ban content. Sometimes, however, I feel we have no choice because we want to protect reddit itself.

lastres0rt7• 11 years ago

Completely ignoring that those users don't exactly stay in just the "contained" subreddits, or that this thinking doesn't pollute the water elsewhere.

If there were some actual way to enforce this idea that you post in [Bad Sub X] and couldn't post ANYWHERE ELSE for several hours, they maybe you'd have something, but the people who give me the worst time are often posting in at least 2 or 3 different subs, usually something innocuous like /r/videos along with the sub that makes me consider them scum.

As it is, a very popular women's subreddit -- TwoXChromosomes -- went straight into the toilet as soon as it was made a "default" subreddit and exposed to the "default" population of Reddit. Draw your own conclusions to that one.

vehementi2• 11 years ago

, but the people who give me the worst time are often posting in at least 2 or 3 different subs, usually something innocuous like /r/videos along with the sub that makes me consider them scum.

Yes. Every questionable post I read now has a second thought filter going on - is this shit post a troll from some coontown/TRP/whatever or should I bother to actually engage and dig into what they mean

tptacek8• 11 years ago

Did he "completely ignore" it, or did he just not engage with it to your satisfaction in that particular comment?

savanaly• 11 years ago

“Hate is an unpleasant side-effect of hosting unfettered free speech in exactly the same way that cancer is an unpleasant side-effect of selling cigarettes.”

What did he mean by that? They're both side effects...is he saying that the downsides of free speech outweight the benefits, as many would agree is the case with cigarettes?

threeseed2• 11 years ago

I assume he is referring to unfettered free speech. In most countries there is no such thing as true free speech. There are defamation, anti-racism and anti hate laws that protect individuals and minorities. Getting rid of those so you can have true free speech arguably does nothing other than invite and support hatred which I assume is the point he is making.

Rusky3• 11 years ago

His biggest point is that Reddit is (trying) profiting from hosting that speech and thus the downsides of supporting Reddit outweigh the benefits. Not necessarily free speech in general.

potatolicious• 11 years ago

"is he saying that the downsides of free speech outweight the benefits"

The downsides of no-holds-barred, absolutist free speech outweigh the benefits - the qualification is important. The proof is readily examinable from the site.

The subreddits with greater representation (beyond young, white, and male) are all heavily moderated around-the-clock - e.g.,: askhistorians, iAMA, askscience. They are also unsurprisingly the only subreddits that aren't actively embarrassing when exposed to the outside world.

Meanwhile the laissez-faire subreddits are absolute cesspools in the comments - e.g.,: worldnews, videos, funny... The white supremacist subreddits routinely raid the comment sections of posts (particularly anything relating to black men) with impunity.

Reddit isn't just a good example of what happens when unfettered free speech is prioritized above the safety of individual users, it's also a good example of what happens when there is active community leadership and the willingness to shut down the most toxic members of a community. It shows brilliantly the results of years of completely unrestrained free speech vs. moderated speech, and I think the results speak for themselves.

The problem is IMO twofold:

- Reddit the corporation profits (or at least tries to) off of the hate speech that, while largely practiced by only a small minority of the userbase, is commonly found throughout its site, not just the dark corners.

- The existence of these hate communities on Reddit without rebuke, censure, or in fact any consequence, creates more work for the already-overworked and unpaid moderators. White supremacist communities (among other hate communities on Reddit) are emboldened to post their shit far and wide, well beyond the confines of their own communities. Reddit's tolerant attitude towards hate groups on its site actively makes the site worse for everyone else, and massively increases the workload of unpaid volunteers who are already frustrated at poor tools and lack of support from site owners.

As a side note: I don't think there's any disagreement that moderation is fraught with dangers, and that drawing the line between acceptable content vs. unacceptable content will be exceedingly difficult in many cases. Reddit's response to this difficulty so far has been to - instead of tackling a very hard problem - absolve themselves of doing anything, an attitude that IMO has caused great harm to itself and its users.

threeseed2• 11 years ago

Reddit has always had a untenable position on the questionable elements of their community.

FatPeopleHate is banned but yet Coontown is allowed.

Sure technically there is a difference i.e. one specifically targets individuals but from the general public's perspective there isn't. Both subreddits are there purely to attract and spread hate. And that hate as the OP mentions spreads through to other subreddits and undermines the integrity of the site.

onewaystreet• 11 years ago

But while the inhabitants may be different people, the landlord is the same person, and keeping the lights on in /r/javascript is also keeping the lights on in the Chimpire.

This same logic could be extended to the internet as a whole.

doomrobo• 11 years ago

The internet is a decentralized network. His argument is focused on a centralized subset, namely the reddit servers, and its owner(s).

vacri• 11 years ago

No it couldn't, and the reason is right in the name. No one entity controls the internet. It's network-of-networks, most of which are privately owned.

quaunaut• 11 years ago

How do you figure? The internet is a non-central system by default. There is no central authority, period. Someone putting money and time into their own website does not help fund Stormfront.

Why is it that when anyone tries to make a statement or a stand these days, people equivocate themselves into a blithering hole?

cma2• 11 years ago

Worth pointing out that the DNS provider for braythwayt.com has similar policies to reddit's on racist speech, likely for similar reasons (though maybe it is required of all registrars?).

I do think it would be good for them to turn off monetization on the worst subreddits. But you could always move the goalposts and say they still get a benefit by serving those people and potentially having them visit the other, monetized, subreddits. Or complain they are serving racist reddits for free but running ads on nonracist ones. Etc.

tptacek8• 11 years ago

I don't know what the .COM registry-registrar stuff says about racist sites, but there's a colorable argument that cutting off basic, irreplaceable communications infrastructure to objectionable speech is different than hosting a convenience for it. Cutting off DNS for hate groups is closer to denying them telephone service.

The old-school DNS registrars are for the most part part of a collaborative effort to help actually operate the Internet.

Reddit is not.

cma2• 11 years ago

To me, Reddit seems more like a revival of newsgroups, which which haven't been able to work decentralized due to spam.

adomanico• 11 years ago

“Hate is an unpleasant side-effect of hosting unfettered free speech in exactly the same way that cancer is an unpleasant side-effect of selling cigarettes.”

I really don't agree with this / maybe I am missing something here. Free speech on the internet is extremely important.

jessedhillon• 11 years ago

I think you are missing the word "unfettered." It's the difference between an expertly manicured garden and an unkempt one. Someone has to do the weeding, or it will be all weeds. You may say that whoever does the weeding is practicing censorship, but that doesn't mean it's an unnecessary job. Yes, it's difficult (and morally hazardous) to decide what constitutes a weed, but the alternative -- not weeding -- is worse.

Rusky3• 11 years ago

You may be missing the word "hosting." Free speech on the internet is much bigger than free hosting for hate on one particular site.

braythwayt5• 11 years ago

Ok, Free Speech on the Internet is important. Therefore, Stormfront should be allowed to exist.

Now, let’s imagine Stormfront has a “Master Programming” forum of some kind, and they discuss one of my books. Should I link to that discussion on Twitter and/or my blog?

Let’s say that I am allowed to purchase advertising on Stormfront’s “Master Programming” forum. Should I advertise my books there?

I assert that I can say that free speech on the Internet is important enough to allow Stormfront to operate, but still choose not to do business with Stormfront (presuming that they would choose to do business with me).

All my post is saying is that I now view Reddit in the same light, and am making the same decision.

Pent• 11 years ago

I assert that your refusal to do business with Reddit sends a clear message that it should not be allowed to operate. Your actions are speaking louder than your thoughts here.

Is free speech not worthy enough to be blindly defended?

I think it is.

clamprecht• 11 years ago

This makes me think of the quote (maybe it was Churchill), "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried". Anyone is free to set up a site like Reddit, with any level of censorship they want. Heck, reddit is open-source, so you don't even have to build it from scratch.

mj_langford• 11 years ago

There is talk of a federated version of the site: http://cointelegraph.com/news/114785/ryan-x-charles-is-build...

Feels a bit akin to the old usenet idea

thomasfromcdnjs• 11 years ago

Some people are working on the concept in this repo -> https://github.com/hapori/hapori

abhv• 11 years ago

This is not a compelling argument, it applies to "using the internet" in general. Your 50$/mo helps Comcast become a neutral pipe-forum that also chooses to transport (and profit from) hate speech.

(On the other hand, I am so dense as to not yet understand Reddit. HN has much better s-n-r.)

Rusky3• 11 years ago

The difference is that Reddit is a centralized community, where it's actually possible to moderate things without providing the tools for problematic censorship. Just like the comments on a private blog, where the owner has absolutely every right to delete comments or ban users.

On the other hand, if you give the same level of control to a decentralized network, especially to a pipe like Comcast that is often people's only option to access said network, you wind up with nowhere else to go when important things get censored.

patcon• 11 years ago

I'm very sympathetic to what you're saying, but how does this response to racism accommodate when we move online forums to decentralized platforms -- when there is no landlord, and you either stick it out with you fellow tenants or find greener pastures (ie. silos)?

tptacek8• 11 years ago

Gracefully. His concern is that participating in the good parts of Reddit makes him an enabler, because Reddit has some incentive to nurture racist hate groups. Were Reddit truly decentralized, managed by a network of infrastructure providers (like Usenet was), there would still be hate groups, but the incentives would be different (and muted).

mackal• 11 years ago

I've noticed an increase amount of racist crap posted on more generic subs like /r/videos since the closing of /r/fatpeoplehate etc. It bothers me greatly. This shit shouldn't be getting to the top, but it is.

basch2• 11 years ago

/r/videos is a default, most of the defaults are cesspools. unsubscribe

lastres0rt7• 11 years ago

... doesn't saying that set off alarm bells?

How good can the rest of the site be if your response is "unsubscribe from all the default content, it's full of shitty people"?

tootie• 11 years ago

It's hard to draw the line. I'd guess 99% of users would not miss coontown, but what about mensrights and kotakuinaction that host a lot of misogyny but are not expressly dedicated to it? Or what about a Christian sub deriding gay marriage? Or pornography. I agree that Reddit should not feel obligated to host racist or hateful content even if they don't harass. But it's not easy to wield that authority fairly.

lastres0rt7• 11 years ago

If the presence of these subs prevents other people from being able to recommend reddit to their friends...

Kotakuinaction has poisoned the well to the point I don't even want to wear my /r/mylittlepony shirt in public anymore. Or at all, really.

richmarr4• 11 years ago

Totally agree, it'd be really hard deciding where to draw a line if you start banning subreddits. Plenty would disagree with whatever choice you made.

That said, banning isn't the only option on the table.

Part of the problem is that close-knit extremist groups tend to cut themselves off and form echo-chambers that pressure the members to conform, and exclude anyone that criticises them either directly or by labelling them as someone to disregard (see gamergate's use of SJW, or scientology's use of SP).

If I were in charge of Reddit (aside from running a business) that self-propogating isolationism would be the thing I'd want to change, mainly using product design.

lastres0rt7• 11 years ago

The problems with unfettered anonymity / harassment stem from two major "features" of reddit: It's trivial to make a new account that doesn't even have so much as an email address tied to it, and it's almost as trivial to make a new subreddit community like /r/punchablefaces and grow a community of "like-minded" people.

The only way to do this that wouldn't require added staff would be to a) require these features to have some traceable information, like an email address, or b) require these features to cost money, or at least only allow subreddit creation if you've donated reddit gold in the past or something.

muglug• 11 years ago

While I don't agree that reddit should be judged by the most terrible content on this site, much more could be done to dissuade people from inhabiting its darker areas.

How about disabling custom CSS/images and comment gilding on a per-sub basis? Presumably Reddit will need to flag offensive subs anyway (if they don't already) so that future advertisers' content isn't associated directly with them.

calgaryeng• 11 years ago

Any particular reason this submission disappeared off of HN?

vehementi2• 11 years ago

The now-downvoted guy at the bottom of this post misread & flagged it. It's apparently since been restored.

CurtMonash• 11 years ago

I'm an anti-censorship extremist. So I think it's OK that hateful asses have a place to hold forth. So as long as that's all a minor part of a site's business, I probably wouldn't take the same approach.

I feel differently, of course, when it's more central.

The closest I can come to judging this based on how speech affects me personally is that several of my great-grandparents died in the Nazi concentration camps, yet I would be pleased if Nazi hate speech were decriminalized in countries that I admittedly don't live in and rarely visit. Also, I read aljazeera.com even though Al Jazeera TV is at times badly anti-semitic (I'm referring to cases in the Arabic version that are extremely likely to have been accurately described.)

INTPenis• 11 years ago

I think he's reaching with this, comparing reddit to stormfront. That tickled me.

Why not instead ask yourself; where are the black empowerment subreddits? Why are young white, and sometimes angry, males over-represented on reddit?

Reddit, and all other communities like it, are only internet forums. Anyone can subscribe, anyone can discuss and in the case of reddit anyone can set the topic and moderate it.

So it's a waste of time to throw blame and fear around without discussing the real question he's interested in, where are black people on the internet? What are they doing? What sites are they interested in?

Questions that I would be interested in.

lastres0rt7• 11 years ago

Reddit only contains about 6% of the online population (while Pinterest -- girly, girly, Pinterest -- has more like 21%). Believing that 6% of the internet is representative of the internet as a whole is absurd.

But to answer your question: Tumblr. Twitter. Facebook. YouTube. Literally anywhere else on the Internet whose name doesn't end in *chan.

Specifically sites that provide a superior mobile experience, but basically NOT the ones that insist that it's "free speech" to show that curbstomp gif from American History X.

AllenKids• 11 years ago

I'm Chinese, and I am constantly reminded by /r/worldnews that blatant ignorance and hate for everything China is a thing, a common thing.

Still I do not understand Reginald's reasoning. The world or reddit for that matter does not revolve around a single person. Sure, visit or don't, do what you see fit. But the grand standing is pretty hollow if I may say so.

Then I remembered the worshiping of free speech in the west and people's reprehension upon mentioning PRC's tight control over media, or on a lesser scale, people's reaction to Apple's walled garden approach. Well, now some company is walking the walk (kinda, with caveats), quite hilariously it becomes poison and the Antichrist.

EDIT：Also I'd like to remind Reginald: The ilks of /r/CoonTown are huge obstacles to reddit's monetization plan, the fact is plainly obvious I really do not get the "blood money" angle.

tptacek8• 11 years ago

Most people who value free speech believe that the law should allow sites like StormFront to exist, but that the market bears no similar obligation.

chc• 11 years ago

Surely freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution because free exchange of ideas is valuable. When you say that only the government should respect this ideal and allow for exchange of ideas, I don't see how you can say you value free speech much at all. "It shouldn't be illegal" has to be about the smallest value you can give something.

Hoerse• 11 years ago

What's your new "Reddit"? Did you migrate to Boat?

norea-armozel• 11 years ago

I'm split on the matter, but I think it would be better if Reddit would admit they need to double down on moderating users. The whole laissez-faire approach isn't going to garner any long term sustainability of their business. This is especially true in regards to /u/spez's statements regarding his dislike for deleted comments. He may think it's bad, but I've encountered in various sub-reddits all sorts of harassment and intentionally hateful commentary (especially towards people like myself [transgender]). And at this point in my life, if I don't want that sort of nonsense in real life then it's clear I don't want it in my time on Reddit. So, I may have to make the same choice as the article's author has and stop going to Reddit. Or at very least not interact at all with the users of Reddit.

braythwayt5• 11 years ago

In that part of his AMA, he came across as oblivious to the experience of a normal user in a normal subreddit. Deleted posts may pique your curiosity, but if you are able to view them and discover some of the really aggressive abuse, most people get turned off the experience.

He obviously doesn't, and that's why reddit is optimizing for the young-straight-white-male-in-a-dorm-room demographic. There may be nothing wrong with that, but it is at odds with being “The Front Page of the Internet,” and it is frustrating for mods trying to create safe spaces.

People associate “safe spaces” with culturally marginal groups, but even if you can’t imagine what it's like to be a woman or transgendered, you can imagine what it's like to try to argue factually about hot-button topics like race, free speech, gun control, or the historical use of the Confederate Battle Flag.

bryans• 11 years ago

I wrote this comment at a time when the submission was flagged, and subsequently could not submit it. I only post it now, so that anyone finding this discussion via Reginald's post may read it.

---

The phrase "slippery slope" is stereotypically used whenever free speech is the topic of focus, and for good reason. It is simply impossible to respect free speech (much less champion it), whilst simultaneously selectively censoring it. And that's the key word: selectively.

Imagine a scale from 0 to 100 which represents the level of offensiveness in any given comment. Now try to come up with a logical and ethical value which matches your implied "universally agreed upon" cutoff point for what should be allowed. Unfortunately, you won't ever be able to accomplish this feat, because your level of sensitivity is wholly unique to you. To impose your personal cutoff point on others is the exact opposite of free speech.

So now that we have established speech is free for a very legitimate reason, the question becomes: how do you, personally, decide where the slippery slope ends?

If you're going to publicly chastise and boycott a company such as Reddit for not censoring hateful speech, then you must also abandon your ISP, due to its insistence on making money from facilitating those comments in the subreddits you abhor. But you can't stop there. Don't forget to never buy any computers, tablets, phones or writing utensils ever again, because the companies making those products are facilitating the comments, too. Then you need to abandon any method of commercialized travel, as the companies who make planes, trains and automobiles are facilitating hate rallies and even violent hate crimes.

Eventually, all the way at the bottom of the slope, you find yourself withdrawn from all civilized society. Because the unfortunate reality is that governments are businesses, and if we're avoiding businesses who facilitate hate speech, then we can't live in any country in which people who hate others are allowed to verbalize it, or reside, or even live.

I don't know about you, but I'm keeping my car, my computer, my internet connection and my Reddit.

braythwayt5• 11 years ago

Sentiments like yours are why people quote the aphorism, “Perfect is the enemy of the good.” It is impossible to come up with an ironclad policy with respect to good speech vs bad speech, to have a perfectly consistent policy with respect to who we do business with and who we do not.

So if we wait until we have a perfect policy, that day may never come.

There will always be some imperfection in the way we phrase our policies, in large part because we don’t know everything about the way the world is today and how it will be tomorrow.

What do we champion here on HN? Lean business. You try something. Then you listen carefully to feedback. You iterate. Or pivot. Not everything works, or works out as you expect, but you learn and grow and move forward.

Morality often works the same way. Trying to get a “Minimum Viable Policy” out the door involves many compromises and sleepless nights wondering f you made the right choice. But in the end, it’s more important that you maintain an open mind and learn from trying than to abandon the thought of trying anything until you can come up with something that is so perfect that it can’t possibly have any failure modes.

By all means use Reddit, I’m not judging in anybody’s direction. But please don’t go through life with the thought that the only ethical decisions you can make are those that won’t involve some gray areas or quandries or paradoxes or judgments.

Life is full of them. That’s why we have judges, because laws by themselves cannot suffice. We have to use judgment. And we have to reconsider our judgment.

Today, I make a different choice than you. Tomorrow, or next month or next year I may make a different choice. I think the important thing is to continue to observe and grow and possibly, to make mistakes as we try to do the right thing.

I sense that you are sincere, and so I wish you well and thank you for taking the time to write and share.

benbernard• 11 years ago

I just wanted to say thanks to the author of this article (I hope they are reading this section). This post really made me think hard about reddit, and about my own personal values. I've decided, personally, to stay away from reddit because of this, and I appreciate the write up.

Maybe someday reddit will be a more inclusive place, but for now I agree with the author and will be voting with my feet, as they say.

This is not to say or imply that any of you should necessarily do the same, I think each person needs to come to their own conclusions (which can definitely be different for any number of great reasons)

So Long, Reddit

Related Stories