92 of top 500 subreddits controlled by same 5 people
reddit.com
reddit.com
How? Just ask: https://old.reddit.com/r/redditrequest/
I took over some big subreddits this way and I've had big subreddits taken away from me because I forgot to log in and comment on the account I used to create it. Even though I was active on a non-creator/non-mod account. It's actually how I found out about the "feature".
A very poorly implemented feature given the potential value of subreddits and all the work it takes to grow one.
So if you run a subreddit that you care about, remember to assign some active mods even just to avoid someone taking over your subreddit.
Isn't the monetary value of a subreddit zero to everyone but Reddit corporate?
Probably the best form of advertising. Have people just insert your products in random stories.
“I remember back when I was a kid and mom would make a cake with Betty Crocker icing”
I’m automatically suspect of any post mentioning products. Probably happens on hacker news too. And instagram. And everywhere else. We have ad blockers, but now the ads will move into the content itself.
“I remember back when I was a kid and mom would make a cake with Duncan Hines icing”
Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat
* /r/aww -> cat playing with a toy with your brand
* /r/HumansBeingBros -> a guy helping poor people by bringing free pizza and free soda to a shelter.
* /r/Fitness -> how about a gif of a clever workout then the main character drink a sip of your soda. After the effort the comfort.
* /r/DIY -> look what I achieve with 7919 cans!
My poor colleague was incredulous when I told him reddit was gamed. Dear summer child, it is not just the obvious product placement for Doritos. It is also entire subs that are heavily modded to the point of being useless. r/sanfrancisco is endless pix of the gg bridge, thanks mods! It also divides the discourse into red team blue team with red team bad blue team good. High karma users sell their handle so trolls and sock puppets can have a vernier of credibility. Like San Francisco fromwhere it originates reddit is a cesspool that if you practice active denial, selective ignorance, ignore cognitive dissonance and pretend like all the bounders, freaks, fairies, bohos, hippies, punks, transhumanists, burners, and hackers that came before that everything is beautiful man, its a great place that can still surprise and delight on occasion.
Shouldn't country subreddits be sacred ? Should'nt there be a due process to call out mod excesses, some kind of quasi legal means. Instead they continue their information warfare unabated banning anyone that goes against their viewpoints. They also actively browse people posting in other subreddits and ban them.
While I agree that there should ideally be a process to deal with obviously maliciously confusing community names, a country is an entity too big and diverse to have a single centrally-moderated conversation platform for anyway. Control of the exact country-name subbreddits could be offered to official governments, but is that in any way interesting? We already have country TLDs as official government communication platforms on the web.
I don't see why I shouldn't be able to unhide all modded posts if I choose to.
The abuses of mods in some subreddits if it were happening in real life would be subjects of class action lawsuits.
1. Users on that subreddit can be quite paranoid 2. You'll become paranoid yourself if you spend enough time on that subreddit.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/05/09/official_register_2...
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/modhelp/comments/2v0dpa/moderating_...
Once they got good at that, they had a saleable product, as well as a worldview that treats online discussion as a resource strata to be exploited and shepherded, not nurtured.
Here's a comment thread about "Gallowboob" which documents all this to a T: https://snew.notabug.io/r/interestingasfuck/comments/gitwbo/...
A guys takes over some subreddits... unless you're a Reddit admin who cares? There's so much content on the web just avoid the stuff you don't like.
Russia doesn't care if Black Lives Matter or not. They promoted inflammatory postings on both sides of the issue simply because chaos and weaking public trust is a goal for them. Sure, you might not care about the issue and don't visit those subreddits, but it still affects you because the community you live in.
Realistic example: someone makes a comment about something nice his boyfriend did. Someone else replies "sounds pretty gay, dude." Could one of these supermods understand that this is a normal and silly thing for queers of a certain age to say to each other? Maybe. I wouldn't count on it. They can't go and dig into each poster's history to see that they post in the same communities and often swap silly comments. The volume in their mod inbox is just too high.
That account could just be the tip of the spear of an entire department of information warfare specialists.
This is why the old tongue in cheek wisdom "On the Internet, no one knows you're a {dog,child,FBI Agent,Special Information Warfare Directorate Agent,Nymphomaniacal Grandma} " never stopped being relevant. User-Agents!=Users.
Don't get into the habit, lest the ones who don't run circles around you.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20200107185156/https://www.reddi...
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/volunteers-found-iran...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization...
Also, countries don't post, people do. It is a well documented fact that Russian had a full time time operating thousands of fake accounts. Russians are posting those messages and spreading memes, but it it is in their official capacity of Russian agents that they do it.
I'm not worried about random Russian citizen posting their thoughts.
I realize it's a popular, even government approved conspiracy theory, but it seems more like psychological projection (the US is absolutely doing such things, and has been long before the internet existed -for example[1]) rather than anything for which there is actual evidence.
Whether or not Russian agents are posting official FUD on Reddit is kind of irrelevant. The idea that anything on Reddit (or twitter for that matter) matters at all is what is so bloody funny about it.
What aren't you willing to dismiss by invoking the magic words "conspiracy theory?" Is this just a joke?
https://intelligence.house.gov/social-media-content/
Reddit, along with twitter and Facebook, were hugely influential in the election, if you you think it is "bloody funny."
Lol, well, I'm definitely willing to dismiss the idea that reddit, twitter and facebook are why Trump is president if that's what you mean. I suppose Obama won the 2008 election because of some dank memes posted in 4chan, and Bush won in 2000 because of funny things some weeb posted on Usenet.
As far as why people continue to say it: as I said, it's projection. The US has done 1000x worse than whatever imagined ridiculously effective Reddit posts the Rooskies have done. The fact that adult humans with day jobs who are somehow able to feed themselves without choking to death on their tongues are able to believe in such nonsense will never ever cease to amuse me.
If you actually believe such things, you really need to learn how to count.
However, you can't reduce Russia intelligence operations to that kind of satire when it's been a concerted active operation for several years now.
This is an interesting read: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html
I remember taking over a top 10 channel on Efnet because the owner went on holidays and forgot to get someone to keep their account active.
> Note that “activity anywhere on reddit” IS NOT limited to publicly visible posts and comments.
Reddit's admins can presumably see things like last visit, use of the moderator tools, etc. that aren't in the public feed.
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/dt527o/no_this...
(Post mentions/links to discussions of others, notably https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/20yhxc/reddit_... )
The neonazi takeover of /r/xkcd was a stark warning sign.
Of course, a similar issue afflicts any proprietary publishing venture, see the long sad saga of American Mercury:
I think content moderation could be done by the community flagging problematic content. Flagged content could be temporarily hidden, with the reason it was flagged. The OP could then write a short defense of the content, and then a "jury" of randomly selected users (who are over 18) could vote on whether to permanently remove the content or to allow it. Content couldn't be flagged again for the same reason if the jury had previously approved it. There would be a public record of content removal decisions, and perhaps even a restricted way to somehow request the removed content as a matter of public record, without surfacing it into public view.
Obviously, there would need to be some experimentation to get a better system. Which is my whole point. I wish there were more systems experimenting with this.
Image posts do not exist and we usually prefer medium to long text and videos that are dense with content. It’s not entirely formal though, and there are avenues for conversation and personal expression. The announcing post: https://blog.tildes.net/announcing-tildes
Extended docs and the philosophy of Tildes: https://docs.tildes.net/philosophy
Tildes' content is open for anyone to see: https://tildes.net/
We have a subreddit: /r/tildes with a permanent thread for invites and there are invites for everyone.
If someone made a civil argument with citations, leading to a conclusion you find immoral, but you didn't have the expertise to find errors, would you delete it or leave it up?
Tildes is definitely not a place for free speech absolutists.
For what it’s worth, Tildes is more free than it seems at a first glance. But we’re determined to not be another victim of the paradox of tolerance.
The Tildes founders looked at Reddit, then what happened to Voat and identified the problem as a social one, not a technical one. The problem with Reddit and Voat lies between the keyboard and the chair. This is why they focus on the quality and good faith of the discourse, instead of metrics like growth or mass appeal. They aren't aiming to be a clearing house for all means of social interaction in the way that commercial social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit are.
Here is the complete list in good quality.
https://i.redd.it/bfhl8s6o2fn41.png
Mirror https://imgur.com/a/rjE8YuW
There are mods that are smart enough to have different accounts for each sub - so that only Reddit admins would be able to tell that they are the same person.
...but the reality is that those Reddit admins are also some of those "power mods".
I once have a conversation with a mod, who admitted that he was an admin as well - I wish I had saved the exchange.
people seem to forget how easy manipulation of information is and sites with voting mechanisms are the easiest of all to manipulate especially those where you can silence with relative ease.
Everyone took a HEADLINE, with a single table as their proof!
Even here on HN.
This is the WORST of content I had to deal with - a virus that forces a decision just by glancing at it.
How are these mods in "control", they aren't even top mods.
How are they "controlling" reddit?
None of that is explained, none of that is proved.
The person posting it was spamming the content all over the place and seems to be driving drama.
And people swallowed this? Hook line and sinker? Discussion here is sans reflection of the facts?
I looked at the top 5 subreddits in the table, where it looks like a single person is controlling them. They have 145 distinct mods.
Controlling reddit? lol
Classic example of why you never, ever look at vanilla served up for you Reddit. Just make it your own.
The algorithm should decrease the value of old comments even more. There's already a formula, something like
position_score = score/(age^2)
Unfortunately the more a comment is upvoted, the more it's visible, so it's snowballing upvotes faster than the 1/age^2 can decrease its position.
Also the more a thread is popular, the sooner it should be locked.
I don't think threads should be locked, though. There is nothing on Reddit more annoying than not being able to reply to someone because of an arbitrary decision (like a mod locking the entire submission). There are better solutions. But it just seems silly to shut down discussion when people want to have it on a social site.
Even sinking a thread to the bottom is better than locking it.
> But it just seems silly to shut down discussion when people want to have it on a social site.
Locking is meant to be used when a thread is filling with toxic bile and there's little chance of things improving. I don't think it's always wrong for mods to lock a thread.
On Tweakers you (as a user) can apply for mod rights and it allows you to rate each comment from -1 to +3.
+3 = must-read
+2 = informative
+1 = on-topic
0 = off topic
-1 = spam / insult
There's an alogrithm that gives your rating more weight if they (retroactively) allign with what the supermods (employees of the site) rate comments.
On Tweakers you almost never read insults and "and my axe" repititive comments because they are hidden by default, and the +2 and +3 comments automatically get places at the top.
This has so much over a simple +1 / -1 system. I wish more website would think about their comments systems and how they can achieve a good incentive and moderation structure for informative comments to be lifted up and unwanted ones down.
Tweakers is Dutch but to get an idea here's a news thread with a lot of comments:
I enjoyed the say Slashdot did it.
I think you could filter though to hide all 'Funny' and only show 'Informative' or something like that. Never did make an account.
HN is my replacement for /.
Even more occasionally you would find yourself with some 'meta-moderation' points - where it displays some moderation decisions and asks whether you agree/disagree that this was good moderation
The real genius of the system though was the amount of configurability attached to those topics. Each user could define what those categories meant to them, so if you only wanted the serious stuff you could say Funny didn't get a +1 boost when displaying comments, and give it a -1 instead. Or -5 if you really hated Slashdot humour. In the other direction lovers of a good flame war could boost comments flagged as flamebait up in the sorting order. This also extended to relationships, where you could flag people as either friends or foes, allowing you to make sure you always saw comments from people who's comments you enjoyed, and squash anything by people you just didn't like.
All of that was an absolute nightmare for performance I'm sure, which is probably why we don't see it these days, but it was a thing of beauty.
I'd been on the site since before registration and moderation existed, and had a very low UID, back when that ... still really didn't matter.
Kuro5hin's "mean of moderation" system converged (within a five point scale, much like Amazon star ratings), though in practice people vastly overaward high scores.
Explicit scoring systems are difficult to design. They also leak insane amounts of personal information.
Sidenote: what's ironic in your linked post is that the only comment with a +3 rating is factually incorrect. The author claims that there is no currently known quantum algorithm that breaks ECDSA.
I even 'rebuilt' it tried to sell it as a service once (http://xcursi.com - warning, the cert is expired and I've been too lazy to replace it).
Also curious about being able to make a web extension that collapses at a certain configurable level. Or even reordering. Not that it helps most users. But would be interesting.
It was about reading them. Specifically that with fully expanded comments, users have to scroll past even downvoted, flagged responses to the top comment before seeing the second-highest voted top-level response.
Maybe if it was more predictable and shallower it would be good, the problem is its annoying to keep clicking show replies to load more levels
If it uses a deterministic MAB algorithm, it would put unvoted posts at the very top. The MAB algorithm is constructed to find the best choices (here, most liked posts), and it can't know what the true score of a comment is if nobody has voted on it yet. Thus the need for exploration would push those posts/comments very high.
https://redditblog.com/2009/10/15/reddits-new-comment-sortin...
As someone who browses both reddit and hacker news (obviously), I'm regularly frustrated by the way this site hijacks your attention to ask you to judge some recent comment, rather than showing you the ones worth reading at the top. It's still never going to get enough votes to keep that position, and it makes more sense to ask people who've scrolled to the bottom to judge comments with few votes, once they've already read the current frontrunners.
When you see big subs with old comments with a lot of votes at the top on reddit, it's probably because there's nothing else worth showing towards the bottom. I scroll further than I probably should, and the more the subreddit appears to have the early-replier problem, the less I care how those comments are ordered.
All advertising platforms consolidate over time.
Seriously, has anyone seen those mods control those subs?
Have they removed other mods and run the subs according to their evil designs?
What evil design?
People all over this thread are talking about this as if it was fact.
This is a point where people stop being effective on HN, and offload their thinking to assumptions of trust, jsut because its posted here.
This thread, and this post mean that this isn't a fair thing anymore.
"Reddit defiantly needs to restructure their moderation teams."
Wow. Reddit really is just a pile of rubbish now. So glad I found HN.
What would improve the content quality is a requirement to maintain membership by answering a complex enough question once a month. Questions could be prepared by mods. But then all the reddit audience would be gone, and with them the reddit's power to influence the lazy internet crowd.
They have no interest in setting up barriers or vetting members. Dumb engagement is easier than building tools to support content creation. Infinite scroll, embedded videos. It's becoming Zuckerbergian.
While reddit's never been amazing it feels like the quality is going downhill faster than before slowly turning into youtube level comments.
Apparently they are ERC-20 tokens, and in the CC sub, there are frontpage posts already asking how to buy "Moons".
The voting/modding mechanics here on HN are not immune to the poison of becoming popular.
Also, it probably helps that this community is not particularly demographically diverse compared to the average. There is less value to a PR company in sockpuppeting here, unless they are specifically trying to reach tech workers specifically.
The perfect example of this was /r/wallstreetbets. Its sole purpose was to funnel money into some weird crypto trading company simply because one of the moderators decided on it.
The link is to evidence of widespread discrimination by Reddit moderators against this user, based (seemingly) on the fact they chose to post this image. It shows that they're going to far greater lengths than just censoring the original post: they're engaging in a concerted campaign against this user in response.
Two people have now commented assuming this is some sort of ad-hominem against the user. I think it bears elaborating in-thread that the notable thing here is that this otherwise-normal Redditor has been systematically persecuted by these same mods, since posting this, completely baselessly. They do not want this discussed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/gj2843/so_t...
I think that's been quote mined. Here is a link to a comment by a moderator on /r/interestingasfuck that includes the context. Followed by more discussion about why he was banned from more subreddits.
https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/gjedc1/uroo...
Also if you find it interesting here is another post of him trying to explain the initial moderation action: https://old.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/gj0wt9/whats_...
It seems to me like they have a basis. Do you think their basis is sound?
In this case: ceddit.com -> https://snew.notabug.io/r/interestingasfuck/comments/gitwbo/...
so: https://www.removeddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/gitw...
good to have backup services.
edit: It also works if you disable Enhanced Tracking Protection in FF
That's true if ceddit scanned the thread prior to the message being deleted. In a heavily trafficked and modded thread, many comments will be deleted in-between scans and those will be lost to everyone but reddit admins.
The only surefire way of seeing every censored comments is for reddit to provide the option to the users, but they are too pro-censorship and too pro-mod to allow that to happen.
If you post an opinion that gets downvoted a lot, your account will be given a 10 minute timer before you can reply to anyone, or post a new comment.
As a result, users must weigh the implications of compromising their ability to use all the features of the website, versus having the freedom to voice their opinion. In most cases if you want to express your opinion on some topic which is against the prevailing narrative, and you don't want it to affect your ability to post about completely unrelated things like Power Tools or Automobiles, then your only options are to self-censor, or use a different account, or wait 10 minutes between comments.
The ceddit website will show you censored content, but there are likely millions of similar comments that users did not post because the algorithm discourages wrongthink
Reddit is a reflection of the broader societal trend away from local or small communities toward an anonymized, faceless megacorp one, replete with all the problems that usually entails. I hope that somehow we can get back to the human feeling of the early internet.
It seems to me like Discord provides a similar experience for today's kids. But of course the medium itself is quite different (long-form vs quippy, preserved vs ephemeral) and informs the experience accordingly.
Much as I somewhat romanticize the BBS experience I think it's going to occupy less and less of this type of social space, just by the nature of the way people communicate now.
I learned a lot by browsing years old posts in forums and usenet but with ephemeral messaging I would not be able to do that. Makes me wonder how the new generation will deal with that.
It is also about centralisation vs each community hosting their own servers and not having to adhere to the arbitrary rules that some company enforces upon them.
If you don't like Discord managing your chat data, Matrix.org is an option.
This leads to shallow takes and groupthink, IMO, as comments become upvoted or downvoted based only on what's in that specific comment and not the overall identity of the author. If Reddit were the real world, it would be like starting an entirely new conversation with every single person you meet (even close friends or family members), a kind of endless first impression, in which small things are over-magnified.
The site design is similar to HN on this front. I think that it is culture that separates the two instead.
> as comments become upvoted or downvoted based only on what's in that specific comment
This is desirable imo. It should not matter who makes a post but rather the quality of the post itself.
Regardless, I think that groupthink is an inherent problem of upvoting/downvoting and that this is the main cause of it. The best system that I have seen so far is the one that slashdot and its clones use.
> and not the overall identity of the author
This instead leads to personality cults, where for example tptacek's comment will get to the top regardless of its contents and bury superior comments by "irrelevant" users. Plus it is not like groupthink does not exist in HN either.
> it would be like starting an entirely new conversation with every single person you meet
I do not see what you mean by that. Repeating the same things? If so, I do not see how this would be the case. Rather, I think that being able to discuss with others and evaluate what they post in face value without letting your prejudice and opinion of the person itself get in the way is ideal.
Agreed. Culture is important.
Regarding my comment on identity: I'm trying to make a more subtle point, which is that it's difficult to build a long-lasting relationship via an online community if every comment is essentially speaking to a broad, new audience. I can't say, "Hey User-X, you mentioned this last week and I was thinking about it yesterday, and wanted to say this...". There is no continuity and no relationship-building.
Another (poor) metaphor would be: imagine your job is a traveling elevator repairman/repairwoman. You go from building to building, working at each for a few days. Sometimes, you go back to the same building. Maybe you strike up a conversation with each building's maintenance staff, but the fact that you have no enduring identity, means that you never quite get to know anyone, even if you recognize some of the same faces.
Forums didn't have this issue, largely because of avatars, signatures, and basically being forced to read every comment.
> This is desirable imo. It should not matter who makes a post but rather the quality of the post itself.
I think this makes sense at first glance, but the downsides (personality cults) are a separate issue that arises from the voting system. If you had comments/posts organized chronologically, 'cult leader' comments wouldn't be at the top. This also only seems to happen when the community is large enough for an individual to be anonymous within it.
I do. All the reddit threads that I look at are from online searches regarding some sort of question that I have. Most of them tend to be months old, some even years. You just make the experience of people like me significantly worse. I wish that services like ceddit stored the content of user-deleted posts.
Deleted comments are also easy to ignore. Deleting your comments regularly might be construed as a dick move by some people, but as you say, dicks are easy to ignore.
Dumb analogies are dumb. Carefully curating one's online content is in no way similar to "dropping the paper thrash on the street".
HN has similar problems because you can edit your post after people have replied to it. This means you can retroactively change history and how prior arguments were framed, which can make other people look like idiots or completely destroy a comment chain.
If you're really concerned about anonymity or your history being used against you, then create throwaways. Otherwise you're not stopping corporations from keeping tabs on you, the moment you hit post that data's already been scraped and stored somewhere.
If you really want to be safe, you probably need to utilize multiple online identities. Give the squeaky clean one to your employer if they ask.
https://www.reddit.com/r/learnpython/comments/aoq9yj/reddit_...
Back in the late 90s early 00s I was a member of a forum for a chain of video game stores in the UK, it was an amazing community. The store went bust in ‘05 and one guy created his own forum software where most of the displaced members flocked to.
That forum is still going, although there’s probably only 10 or so regulars left - but we still talk on it every day. I’ve even met a few of them in the real world.
EDIT: I think you've hit the nail on the head, the thing that was so great about forums is, while the original point of the forum was to bring together people with a like minded interest (video game(s)/whatever) - the forum would also have separate boards to discuss cross over topics or something completely unrelated. This meant you were talking to people who you might recognise from other areas of the forum and share other common interests, so could build that sense of community.
Whereas reddit just feels more siloed, I wouldn't recongise anyone who visits subreddit X who also happens to be on Y etc
There are huge benefits to this like minorities gaining scale to be heard. But I feel a lot of benefits are of the type of taking something very good and scaling it up to a global level. What is less seen is the destruction of a lot of other good solutions elsewhere which might have had a chance to develop into something even better with a little more time. We are loosing diversity in products and ideas.
Finding ways to restore smaller scale in some areas may be beneficial but it is not clear how to make it work. Arbitrage across boundaries levels differences. The benefits of tearing down the boundaries accrue with the rule breakers who gain scale. Google+ was an attempt to stem the tide. It may have been flawed but it also tried something fundamentally hard.
When Reddit puts something on the hot tab, there's one hour or two for anybody to say what they want to say, no time for anybody to reply, and it's gone. HN is slower, but not very different. It's a completely different kind of site.
Used to be in alt.callahans and I can't imagine how many threads I just collapsed and moved on because I knew that conversation wasn't a topic of mine. And still managed to ping in at least a few dozen messages of varying size/quality a week.
If you head over to rivals.com there's a paid site for each team with a private board. Obviously, some are more active than others and there are competitor sites out there as well...but it's the same experience that you're describing.
I've been on those boards for about 20 years now and it's exactly what you describe. Regulars who talk some sports, but also news, random conversation, recommendations for contractors (since many of the members live within 100 mile orbit of the Clemson), advice on investments and fiances, restaurants, etc.
It's worth every penny for the resource it's been.
I'm only a casual cfb fan, but during my forays into the online representation of the cfb fandom (mostly through reddit/r/cfb) I always marvel at the depth and breadth of the creativity, humor, and information in the fandom.
I could see where some people (and let's be honest, it's mostly men ages 18-30 or so) could immerse themselves in that subculture and have a lot of fun.
I imagine there are multiple subcultures that are large and immersive enough to totally lose yourself in and I think it's great.
(Of course there's also an element of avoidance of the real world in there, but that's more on the individual than the community)
It’s an affiliation you never lose and so many people end up coming back throughout the season for games that it turns into a large family gathering.
I’ve never seen it’s equivalent in anything else.
This is mostly the crux of the matter. It doesn't matter if you're talking about Reddit, phpBB, discord, imageboards, whatever. As a community grows, it becomes harder to deal with and more "faceless". I've been in great sub reddits. I've had to leave message boards on other platforms for the problems you describe (and others).
Reddit's too anonymous and Facebook is not anonymous enough!
To a lesser extent, the lack of friction caused by not having to register individually to each message board to stop lurking, and the lack of friction creating new communities also matter, but none of those improvements require a centralised site to exist - niche reddit communities should be relatively easy to move from the site if such tooling existed, much easier than moving people from social networks at least.
Those cons you mention definitely do exist, they're an emergent problem of the conversations and communities that arise, but opinion bubbles never seem to be a bottleneck for a platform gaining popularity - which makes sense since they, by definition, favor the majority's opinion.
I'm also not convinced that chronological ordering is better for diversity of opinion: comments might not be hidden directly, but they can be drowned. In a reddit-like system each user can downvote you just once, while in a message board system each user can post N times, with each post making your opinion a smaller portion of the conversation.
What chronological posts are better at is favoring power users over casual users: there is a clear advantage for those who can post early and/or often. For everything besides the starting post of the thread, it also rewards short and not very thoughtful posts (since posting later is punished in visibility). The result is also a bubble, and one dictated by the people that spend their lives on the boards.
And in my personal opinion, there's not a lot of overlap between the people that lead interesting lives and are great at their fields and those willing to spend a great portion of their life in a message board.
As an experiment I'm going to leave this comment ambiguous because I want to see if this description alone is relatable to users who were frequent visitors at the time.
It was most blatant when Hillary basically collapsed in front of the van. First wave was it was hot everything is fine, second was that she was feeling a bit under the weather due to the heat, and then it just a one off thing she's perfectly fine now look at the cute girl who greeted her. You would see hundreds of posts saying this exact thing and then change within 5 minutes.
I'm going to leave this ambiguous too :)
* Bots and sock puppets pushing agendas
* Reddit counter culture movements and backlashes. Seems to be bipolar with pro China / anti China every day of the week.
* Reddit nice guys who have account names like "Iliketitties" or something really depraved. Along with all the other hypocrites
* Reddit Admins and big personalities driving content trends on the site e.g. (/u/gallowboob)
* Recycling of posts / knowledge, since there are always new people joining. You get things like "TIL that bananas are sterile" trending once every month. Which is frustrating for veteran users
* Reddit arm chair generals/economists/politicians. The points system rewards trendy content and doesn't necessarily mean quality. Unlike points in Stackoverflow, there is some degree of confidence in the users competency.
* The fact that Reddit is mainly populated with technologically proficient people, who probably have some sort of issue, whether it be mental, psychological. Sure we all suffer from our demons but the amount of stuff I read on there makes me cringe at times.
* The "Reddit Contrarian", waiting to snipe your post with their immense intellect
Sure there are many more that could be extrapolated to any other social network.
Just recently someone on YC asked about "mind bending books" and the #1 response was Permutation City by Greg Egan.
I've read this book, and it was an amazing, nearly life altering experience for me. But lets just say... his style of science fiction is not for everyone, and it's certainly not mainstream. Even in my relatively techy circle of friends, nobody has read any books by Greg Egan. Not one. This indicates to me that the current YC crowd is an extremely narrowly filtered subset of the general population.
Recently I've been reading his Orthogonal series about a Universe that has Riemannian spacetime geometry instead of our Lortentzian spacetime. See: https://www.gregegan.net/ORTHOGONAL/ORTHOGONAL.html
Can you imagine going to Facebook, Reddit, or even Slashdot and having such books be even in the top 100? The common people upvote Tolkein, Pratchett, and J K Rowling.
Notably, even in the early days, Slashdot had... crazies. Conspiracy nuts, creationists, UFO true believers, and the like. I've noticed that YC is one of the few forums where the one or two Creationists present are mercilessly voted down and their arguments are rejected out of hand. Such trolls get no traction here. But recently... there has been an increase in such talk. It's still small, but I've noticed the trend.
Look at the "new" queue to see what fails to make the cut, much of it auto-killed.
This one is interesting to me. I could certainly be accused of being this guy, you could probably make an argument that I'm being this guy right now.
We're all here and participating for different purposes, and one of my purposes is to sharpen my writing skills and my rhetoric. Arguing with strangers on the internet is the most effective way of doing this that I've found, that doesn't affect my personal/professional life.
Another thing you mentioned - people with immense issues. We've all got plenty of issues, and one of the best things about commenting anonymously on the internet is that there is no punishment for revealing them.
I think that there are positive perspectives you could take on some of these bullet points
> I think that there are positive perspectives you could take on some of these bullet points
Arguing with someone on the Internet is positive only if the other party also wishes to argue.
Kind of like going out to the street and physically fighting with a random person. It'll definitely sharpen your fighting skills, but it's not a positive if the random stranger doesn't want to fight.
If you're addressing the physical fighting analogy, yes - it is an imperfect one. It is also not the main thrust of my argument.
If you're referring to the wider point, I don't see the relevance. It's not a given that the purpose of commenting on HN is for sharpening writing skills and rhetoric. It no doubt is the purpose of some on HN, but not everyone.
To take the statement to a pointless extreme, you can also choose not to reply to someone who is openly insulting you on HN. That doesn't make it OK to do so.
I feel you've made an argument towards me with your comment, and it was welcome because you posed it rationally and without making it personal. It's impossible to pose a fight with a stranger rationally and impersonally, so I'm not sure that that analogy is a good fit.
I think the distinction is that while it is productive for you, it may be the opposite for your interlocutor. People have conversations for different reasons, and the reasons you have are a strict subset of those. And in real life - outside of academia and some of the tech world - their reasons rarely align with yours.
(Lesson learned the hard way).
In my work I'm able to make a convincing argument as to why a given architecture is the right way to do it, why a given tool isn't worth using, etc. This allows me to participate in high-level design discussions and be a major contributor to them, even though I have relatively little experience. I attribute that almost entirely to my experience as an internet commenter, as odd as that sounds.
When I played sports, we spent a fraction of our practices trying to mimic the real world scenario (scrimmaging). And even in a scrimmage, it's risk free, there are no stakes.
The lack of risk is exactly what makes it great practice.
Edit: I would go a step further and wager our brains aren't calibrated for arguing random other human beings in person we don't share assumptions, behaviors, and/or appearances with; I mean people have a hard enough time communicating with the people they've chosen to commit the rest of their life too, it's hard to conceive of being able to master a marriage without being in the marriage.
It may be the more conscious moderation style on HN, but it’s much more likely you’re going to get interesting content and thoughtful discussions here than on most subreddits, particularly those that show up on r/all or r/popular.
HN definitely has issues with performative intellectualism and people being unnecessarily argumentative, but I don’t think equating it with reddit is accurate.
The fact that your comment here isn’t deleted is a testament to how wrong your comment is.
Set "show dead" == "yes".
(For other users: your own account page.)
Many Reddit moderators straight up ban people who post stuff they don't agree with.
In practice, who the editor is and how they execute the task matters tremendously.
There's a frequent mantra by a certain segment of the population, tending to "but who should judge?", or the more pointed "what gives you the right to judge?"
My answer to the first is "someone who's quite good at it, and takes the responsibility seriously".
To the second: "who are you to say I cannot?" We are all judgement-making machines, so long as we have a functioning intellect. We're trying to fit our heads around an external reality, and, generally, make better rather than worse choices.
I'm a fan of systems with checks and balances, with principle, and with transparency. HN scores well on some points, less so on. others (notably transparency). A problem with transparency reports is that excessive detail is tedious and cantip off malevolent actors, insufficient can hide many sins.
A more accurate comparison would be between HN and niche subreddit of roughly equal size and traffic. Not that I am or am willing to put in the work to make such a comparison, but I suspect the quality differential then would be smaller than a lot of people assume.
(And, generally, do an excellent job in my view. Not perfect, but it's a difficult, unending, and greatly-underthanked task.)
* HN Companies and sock puppets pushing agendas
* Hacker news counter culture movements and backlashes. Seems to be bipolar with pro Rust / anti Rust every day of the week.
* Hacker news nice guys who have account names like "mothsonasloth" or something really depraved. Along with all the other hypocrites
* Hacker news Admins and big personalities driving content trends on the site e.g. (/u/patio11)
* Recycling of posts / knowledge, since there are always new people joining. You get things like "TIL that microservices are awesome" trending once every month. Which is frustrating for veteran users
* Hacker news arm chair generals/economists/politicians. The points system rewards trendy content and doesn't necessarily mean quality. Unlike points in Stackoverflow, there is some degree of confidence in the users competency.
* The fact that Hacker news is mainly populated with technologically proficient people, who probably have some sort of issue, whether it be mental, psychological. Sure we all suffer from our demons but the amount of stuff I read on there makes me cringe at times.
* The "Hacker news Contrarian", waiting to snipe your post with their immense intellect
* "The Pedantic Nitpicker". He will respond to your long, 50 sentence comment and say something like: "That one sentence said 'all' and should say 'some' because here is a counterexample. Therefore, YOUR ENTIRE POST IS WRONG."
* "The Sealioning Scientist". No matter what you say, she will ask for linked academic sources, and goad you into arguing, all while acting sincere and curious. If you fail to cite them, then obviously you are writing fiction, and she wins.
* "The Silent Downvoter". Skims through posts, looking for ones that violate some established groupthink or simply go against the current subreddit's zeitgeist, downvotes and sneaks off into the dark. Nobody knows their username because they never comment or explain their downvote.
I think we all wish that we could see the reasons people had for downvoting, but I've accepted that it's just like real life: people will disagree or dislike you and judge you, and you might end up none the wiser, and that's just how it goes.
I think this combination of phenomena, getting downvoted for going against groupthink as opposed to not contributing to the conversation, commenters trying to call out their downvoters, commenters accusing their downvoters of being sheep, is more illustrative of a different general issue: people have a tendency to perceive negative social signals as attacks. We all understand defensiveness as a phenomenon, but humans in general are also much better at spotting defensiveness in others than in themselves, so the calmness disappears when it's you being downvoted.
Downvoting as a mechanism seems to do an approximate job of social regulation at best, and I think that's specifically because the wisdom of the crowd is only good for some things and specifically not good for handling nuance or dissent.
My favorite are the people who demand sources for every assertion of yours, while making numerous factual assertions of their own without providing sources.
Bonus points for disregarding sources once provided, e.g."everyone knows Snopes and Politifact are fake and just anyone can write on Wikipedia".
citation needed
I began thinking twice before commenting on anything, and then eventually stopped. Even in the most benign subs, you can quickly escalate to Hitler if you deviate from the hive-mind.
I see anti-china all the time, but rarely see pro-china. This in on /r/all, by the way, so it's not because of any filter bubble on my part.
Perhaps back when Reddit used to be a niche site, it was "mainly populated with technologically proficient people", but now it's the seventh most-popular site in the US. The days of "fellow Redditors" meaning anything concrete are long gone.
You can see it's evolution over time from a site where programming topics were very popular (as a proportion) to where general-purpose memes are dominant. (https://media.wired.com/photos/593278f0a31264584499534b/mast...)
Missed opportunity to refer people to the canonical subreddit /r/rimjobsteve.
* using engagement as a ranking metric. This ensures the content is addictive, even if it's low quality
* the reactionary fabricated content they keep because it went viral
* important news won't surface until hours after an even happens unless an admin stickies it because they removed their traditional ranking algorithm
* the shift away from subreddits being communities and towards social media style entities
I wish reddit's alternatives gained some traction. Voat had some promise but got taken over by racist bots. saidit might have some potential.
How in the world can anyone have time for that? That is beyond a full time job.
Is there a way to see a list of moderators and how many subs they moderate? Who moderates the most subs?
Manipulating opinion is important these days. Mailing lists and Usenet were free, most web forums are subtly (or overtly) censored.
There was a reason for the tone back then and it worked.
Flames however are also censored nowadays, since it is essential for the people in power to maintain polite meaningless conversation that will never lead to any actions.
I would personally rather have to sort through misinfo myself, rather than run the risk of having truthful information hidden from me.
So I assume that even many subreddits not obviously controlled by "central management" are still part of the hierarchy.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/user/peke_f1/
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/gjip7f/congrats_u...
Indeed, peke_f1 is always the account that has posted major announcements. The moderators are often accused of deleting posts that were earlier in favor of peke_f1. Even if the link and title were exactly the same.
I'd love to get into a more niche community.
Or if you are more into the technical side of things: https://www.f1technical.net/forum/
there really is a toxic undertone to a lot of subreddits. Even the niche one's have some crazy people wandering in.
My problem is i don't know what to really replace it with. I don't think the alternatives are great. Forums seem deadish, the format isn't great to use on mobile. Reddit is nice to use in an app, makes it easy to post and read. It almost feels like the social web has run its course.
It's a bit different on smaller, more focused subreddits, but not by much.
I used to think that Reddit was a better place to be than Twitter or Facebook, but now I'm not so sure. I've definitely had a harder time cutting it out of my life than those other two, even though I think it's had a pretty bad effect on my mental health.
But when you're searching for a quick answer (rather than browsing/debating) there's nothing better than upvote sort (see also: stack exchange) which far exceeds any chronological sort forums have.
I think its also a symptom of google searches just not being that great and dominated by people that play the seo game well instead of actual good sources. But thats a rant for another time...
Whatever needs some human knowledge and thought I add a `site:reddit.com` to my search and try to gauge from there.
Product reviews are also much more trustworthy (and sometimes more in-depth) from a collection of reddit posts than anywhere else on the internet.
> I think a part of this is how forum members tend to populate avatar/signature/location/etc and the interface shows it prominently. On reddit you just see a username and occasionally some flair, so you rarely even realize that what you're reading was written by someone you've read from before.
I don't think that's it. I'd probably attribute the anonymity more to size and the deliberate lack of friction for someone to move between subreddits.
To get a sense of community, you need a space where you commonly interact with the same people over and over, not a fire hose of different ones.
HN just avoids the worst of it by being very small on average.
The fact you need browser extensions to rework core features and make reddit usable also doesn't help either.
Funny enough, i went back to find some examples of ones that really drove me crazy and they have gotten better(snowboardforum, nasioc and wetcanvas). One's even got a big announcement about their ui update on the front page.
I do think the threaded style of comments is much better then the forums though. Ignoring the problems of upvotes.
So, like Reddit?
to;dr eternal september = constant influx of many new users didn't allow the 'culture' from before to survive.
The problem with forums isn't that they are dead. It's that you are trying to have them do what reddit does right now, which is endless content and interaction 24/7. But that just doesn't work with a smaller number of people. Forums make sense as the thing that you visit once or twice a day and browse for a bit in a relaxed environment. I guarantee you that doing so from your phone during your commute or your 10 minute break isn't the same. It won't create comments of the same quality.
This is interesting, something I think i had a feeling about, but seeing it put in words, you're probably right. Ive probably changed a bit in my browsing habits and been conditioned to expect constant content.
What I did was slowly unsubscribe to all subreddits over the course of 6-8 months; slowly 1-3 subs at a time. In the end when there was only one sub left, I lost the habit of going to the site.
Reddit and Facebook groups pretty much killed the forums, but the communities are somehow much worse. I suspect it's somehow related to how users would previous cluster in smaller forums, but now everyone descents on one Facebook group or one sub-reddit.
Having both Facebook and Reddit is interesting though. It more or less proves, at least to me, that anonymity is not what makes people behaving badly towards others. The Facebook users are just as bad as those on Reddit. I believe that it's the social distance to others that makes some users behave like jerks.
It shows which subreddits, and their popularity rank, are moderated by 5 people who are moderators of the most subreddits at once.
Which makes this even stranger because why would these people want to be at the top? What's the motivation? Either pure power, or money.
It all fell apart for them a year or two ago though when they had internal problems and one of them came clean.
Their antics were closely followed on the subreddit /r/NoLibsWatch.
Some reading can be had here[0] about one of the members who eventually went to jail/psych ward over a bomb plot, with his stated goal being to start a religious war.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/subredditcancer/comments/4gx9ct/com...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Blackout2015/comments/4ylml3/reddit...
Summary: it looks like Reddit posted on their blog about the "most reddit-addicted cities", and Eglin Airforce Base was near the top. It didn't take long for people to allege that it's due to sock puppetry and propaganda coming from the military, which was legalized in 2013.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-...
At which point the blog post was changed to remove all mention of Eglin.
Propaganda to US citizens seems like a terrible use of tax dollars at best, and an incredibly dangerous tool in the wrong hands at worst.
In regards to the users in the OP, I've personally talked to cyXie, Gallowboob, awkwardtheturtle, and siouxie_sioux, and they all seem to be nice people who simply enjoy participating on reddit [1]. I don't necessarily agree with all the things they do or decisions they make (particularly in regards to moderation) but it really is not malicious. If you start moderating one big sub it means you can be trusted at least enough to do it for another sub. If you think this alone is evidence of a conspiracy then you don't have enough experience with content generation on reddit.
[1] My source is anecdotal; I have several hundred thousand karma so I run in some of the high-karma circles.
How many hours people spend, as they also have jobs which actually pays them?
bold assumption ;) other options include being retired or having a partner provide for them
>how many hours people spend
I'm not one of them, but I'd probably guess it's anywhere from 2-6 hours a day. Depending on job, one could easily can work that in before/during/after work. /u/GallowBoob, the user with the most karma on reddit, actually managed to turn it into his job. He was originally a landscape architect whose reddit habits got him a job at those awful viral licensing companies, although now he does social media directing at an eSports company.
In fact, 4chan officially refers to their analogous role as "janitors." "Moderators" on 4chan would be closer to Reddit admins.
>I really don't know every sub he was banned from and if/what he did, but from looking at his post history he seemed to have just posted his QQ in a bunch of subs which then got him banned because he broke rules there, then he harassed mods and posted misleading comments like the ones I had to remove in IAF.
It's worth noting that /u/ibleeedorange is a high-profile user, but does not moderate the same subreddits as those mentioned in the OP.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/gjedc1/uroo...
I haven't even started referencing the pretty inarguable range of referenced personal accounts of behaviour of these mods.
There's a point at which the idea of this being emergent and unproblematic is still plausible. We appear to be beyond that point.
> I doubt many of you would actually want the responsibilities it requires to do at minimum a decent job of it.
You'd be wrong. I'm sure there's no shortage of people willing to help moderate, so pretending there's a small pool of people available or brushing them off under your own arbitrary definitions of "less qualified" definitely comes off as condescending.
> a bunch of children and adults acting like children.
Which is exactly what these mods are doing now by banning that user from all the subs, so your point doesn't hold water and further highlights a superiority complex.
I mean, having lots of big subs under your control definitely does give you a little feeling of power, which some people like. Personally it doesn't outweigh the responsibilities, which is why my subs are <10k.
>I'm sure there's no shortage of people willing to help moderate
Probably true. But with every new mod you run the risk of getting one who goes rogue or otherwise _seriously_ abuses power. This is simply a self-fulfilling prophecy:
1. conspiracy that a small network of mods have censorship power*
2. mods censor posts because it inevitably leads to a witchhunt
3. goto 1
*mods do have basically unchecked power in subreddits, so it's not really a conspiracy. For a very long time, /r/xkcd was squatted on by white nationalists and admins refused to step in for months.
I've been a forum admin and forum moderator in the past and yes there's always a risk of people going rogue or power-tripping, but that can happen with literally anyone. If it happens, it also tends to end very rapidly as the other moderators clean-up the actions of the rogue quickly. That's why you vet people based off their history and hope it works out. In my experience it's better to have a larger group of trusted moderators to maintain a balance of power then for a small group to act in an authoritarian manner; the latter of which seems to be the case here.
If there's a perception of a witch hunt then the moderator action of ultimate banishment only fuels that fire, seems counter-intuitive for people supposedly acting in good faith.
EDIT: Clarified statement on paid mods
As far as what happened here the moderator for /r/interestingasfuck has been talking about it. He seems pretty open to answer questions. Maybe he could be asked if he gets paid to moderate?
From my anecdotal source, I've been banned a few times, and only once was it justified. The other times, the mods not only could not tell me what rule I violated, but resorted to insults just for my asking. There's entire subreddits dedicated to this type of piss-poor and outright abusive behavior from the mods. I'd wager that, from the perspective of the average user, the mods are the "bunch of children and adults acting like children". To me, they're like the DMV or TSA - small people who "volunteer" just for a small amount of power to make themselves feel like big people by abusing that power. Unfortunately, thus far, I have very little evidence to the contrary.
There is certainly a scratch my back and I'll scratch yours across subs so you get moderators who don't really even know the sub.
Absentee moderators is common as subs drift off topic/ don't filter spam and etc.
/r/ruby still has jamesgolick as a mod. ref: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8804624
One way to do that is to push paid content (or remove content).
Ultimately, these channels of revenue become more profitable and those folks buy more and more subs.
These days I lurk in a very small number of still-useful subs, and definitely don't have an account. For many topics, the interesting stuff has moved elsewhere.
Of course, in the end Reddit doesn't want to be a utility, it wants to be a cash grab. And it's fine to do whatever if your only goal is to get as much money as possible with no concern for anything else.
I'm curious if they're reddit employees (in which case you could imagine reddit choosing to have mods on the more popular subreddits), or just internet randoms.
That said the original post seems perfectly reasonable so shouldn't have been deleted - if the goal was to avoid conspiracy nonsense they just Streisand'd themselves by "proving" that they want it to be secret.
Everything else is just groupthink and tribalism, just look at r/politics or r/news. What's worse is that even neutral subreddits like r/gaming are prone to the mods a.k.a janitors being pissy and deleting anything that doesn't conform to the status quo (looking at you r/TheLastofUs).
And surprise surprise, the post got removed. xd
The sidebar wikis of hobbyist communities is packed full of good content, curated over years by the community so usually it's a very good "starter pack" knowledge to save time on your own research.
The thing is, at some point this is probably gonna happen to reddit as well, so enjoy it while it lasts. Just the other day i read in a subreddit about people being offered things in return for favorable reviews on certain products on those subreddits. Sigh.
Most of the smaller, niche communities I follow are full of nice and helpful people. One example being /r/MTB.
Also Reddit and other forums are just forums. There's plenty of other places to have discussions.
In fact Reddit allows anyone to create sub reddits.
Why can't a group of like-minded people who want to have "non-status quo" discussions create their own communities for it?
That's how Reddit overtook Digg.
But I think what's really the complaint here is that people don't like that they don't have a mainstream audience.
They want to have their posts have the widest reach possible for ego and they don't like moderators deleting their posts or being downvoted.
At the end of the day none of it really matters. Why are people waging pointless online wars about internet communities?
Do they think they're shaping society?
Resetera is the neogaf successor, so you're more correct than you realize
I am thinking that they think "yes".
I can imagine teenagers that are still developing their personal values, and exploring the site, are most suseptible to being influenced by the big subs.
Do you honestly think HN is in a different category? Why do you think this site exists? And how many billions of collective hours of procrastination have been spent here?
Granted, this site is relatively well-moderated and high signal to noise, especially for its size, but so are many subreddits. The top subreddits are a dumpster fire but there are thousands of smaller niche subs that are delightful.
Apparently it's a touchy issue.
https://i.redd.it/bfhl8s6o2fn41.png
Mirror https://imgur.com/a/rjE8YuW
So that’s about one fifth. Divide by five, so each of them is averaging 20 of the top subreddits.
Is that a lot? Do these people work together? I need more context before assuming a strong opinion.
Consider if you are a big/rich autocratic nation state (read China, Saudi) that wants to censor and shape discourse outside their borders. You just buy these 5 people and boom, you get instant powers to shape and censor the discourse on the most viewed forums on Reddit and the wider internet.
Ad infinitum.
What my experience is is that everyone who has seen this on reddit (or facebook or twitter) is doing is just making their own curated network on Discord or something. Slack, even, since the free version is pretty okay. I suppose that just moves the problem to the hosts of the channel but honestly it cannot be worse than reddit since there wouldn't be any corporate influence, which this post seems to strongly suggest is happening at scale on reddit. You see this a lot already, with youtube personalities and devs even saying "join my Discord!" in their videos and on their blogs.
Frankly, this is a good step forward ... but my comment about corporate influence is a little tongue-in-cheek, since eventually those companies (Slack, Discord, etc.) will face pressure (from their owners and investors, from powerful outsiders) to police the content that exists within their platform. I have no idea how to solve this problem. I don't like the idea of any network being vulnerable to the whims of some corporate overlord, so if anyone can figure out how to do a distributed social networking protocol that would be very nice and I'd sign up immediately.
Manged is the word I use when I'm referring to management that's been done badly. I'm sure yours is a typo, but if not, it's a word that should catch on.
Use in a sentence:
My Manger just asked me to do two tasks, which they don't even realise are mutually exclusive.
The Mangement is taking this company down the tubes.
That project was manged into the dismal failure you read about in yesterday's paper.
Ma na ger
Manaːɡɐ
Where Nager translates to rodent.
The front page needs to be removed, and karma needs to be isolated between subs.
Why do they have so little faith in their own concept? Independence but only on our terms?
Personally, it's the digital equivalent of chatting up the guy in the bar stool next to you.
When digg went to v 2, I bailed to reddit
Active for many years.
Reddit went full retard years ago
Now I’m lost and wake up in 4chan sometimes
I hate myself
Whether or not you think Trump acts like a drunken sailor, the fact is the quarantined an entire part of the website because it hosted people talking about what’s now on the news every day.
A lot of people will say "yeah that's unfortunate, but Reddit can do whatever they want because they're a private company." I don't quite agree with that. When you have 430 million active users (that would make it the 3rd most populous country) and market yourself as a "community of communities", and your site is the go-to for people looking for discussion, I think your site needs to be held to a higher standard. If /r/economics with its 810k subscribers automatically censors comments that don't conform to its handful of mods' neoliberal agenda, that's a real imbalance of power that has serious consequences, not just within the Reddit community but to the world at large. If /r/politics with its 6.1m subscribers is censoring viewpoints that don't align with its agenda, that has serious implications. Humans are unfortunately extremely susceptible to hivemind bias.
In any case, Reddit is generally not the best place for meaningful discussion ever since ~2009 or so when it devolved into a watering hole for memes and pun threads (thankfully the pun thread thing died). Top comments seem to consist of 1-2 sentences of sarcastic jokes. The default subreddits range from the internet equivalent of junk food to outright propaganda. HN is great, but it'd be nice to have some alternative places to go to discuss the more non-tech things (eg. politics/economics) and niche topics.
<quote>
The Epistemic Paradox
Our present epistemic systems are undergoing kind of the same shock that the online community underwent when transitioning from BBSs and Usenet to the commercial web to social media.
We were used to a very high content-to-BS ratio because it took a certain amount of intelligence and intense domain-interest for people to be there in the first place -- and we've now transitioned to a situation where many people are there more or less accidentally and (the worst part), because of a high percentage of the population being present, there is now substantial power to be had by influencing the discussions that take place.
Science is much the same. For a long time, it was this small thing operating off to the side; only elites could afford to indulge in it, and their discoveries affected very few -- so the truth value could remain high because there was relatively little to be gained by distortion. People's lives were largely governed by things that had been around long enough that the culture had evolved to deal with them more or less reasonably, so they didn't need advice from domain experts to provide accurate information -- and where expertise was needed, it flowed from parent to child and from master to apprentice as part of a cultural process that everyone understood.
Obviously that's not the case anymore. The culture can't keep up.
This is sort of a reiteration of the last paragraph of my previous comment:
"the actual problem is (1) the increasing complexity of our society, requiring ever more knowledge to discern truth from anti-truth, and (2) anti-information being actively injected into the system by those who seek to manipulate public opinion."
But I wanted to highlight what I think is happening when people decry the death of expertise as this article does: it's sort of a form of retro-voodoo: 'in order to have the reliable information we once had, we need to restore the old forms'. Bring back BBSes and usenet, and we'll have civil internet dialogue again. Trust experts, and we'll have valid science again.
It doesn't work that way. The external conditions have changed, the bandwidth needs are higher and the noise-rejection needs are greater. The old systems are failing under the increased information demand (which we can't just wish away, nor would we want to) -- and so we need new processes that are better able to deal with that heavier load.
</quote>
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_ep...
The sentiment is similar to what earlier media theorists have noted: Shoshana Zuboff's eponymous three laws, Elizabeth Eisenstein on the social impact of the printing press, Noam Chomsky and Ed Hermann in Manufacturing Consent, Marshall McLuhan, Hannah Arendt, the Frankfurt School, George Seldes, Walter Lippmann, Edward Bernays, back to Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and before.
Opposition to this notion tends to run to one of two, or often both, contradictory arguments:
1) What does this matter, it's just an Internet discussion. (e.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23183381)
2). Free speech is supreme, all censorship is bad. (e.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23177185)
(Both examples from this very HN thread.)
The problem is, you cannot have it both ways: either free speech is paramount, because it changes things in the real world, or allspeech is meaningless because it has no effect. Once you move off either pole, you're in a land where 1) speech matters and 2) careless, indifferent, or malicious speech has deleterious consequences.
Even John Start Mill, in "On Liberty", directly addresses this: "the dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution, is one of those pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they pass into commonplaces, but which all experience refutes...."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23068118
You cannot build a large-scale, significant communications system without moderation any more than you can create a large-scale city without sanitation and public health systems, or a global rapid transportation network without commensurate epidemiological detection, management, and controls.
In all, the lack leads to the same consequence: a cesspit of disease, infection, and death.
This is why the nintth and ultimate mechanism of technology is hygiene factors.
(See in part; https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5rnjg0/state_o...)
Why, because it hurts their feelings? To protect them from the consequences of what they said, and ensure everyone has a chance to hear it? Downvoting is an exercise of free speech, too, you know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_Reddit_communiti...
for starters always check eye contact with driver of big truck in front of you plan to cross the road
i think i was already before shielding myself behind poles at junctions
But then that is just one objective analyze of the subs. It would be interesting to know what kind of definitive standard tool we could use in order to define which subs should be banned.
Looking at the Wikipedia article, their definition is that a sub is controversial if a reliable source (primarily a news paper) call a sub controversial, and such it list one feminist sub and one mens rights sub. It not the best definition of truth, as people in the education system and research community commonly points out, but as an approximation it gives the outline of the issue.
Anyone pushing the "political views" story knows that, of course.
You should also take a look at the leakrd conversations by mods and admins scheming to frame them.
No matter your political beliefs, you should be alarmed by this.
It was a common occurrence to see things like pictures of muslim women wearing headwear and a title of “It’s a diaper for their shit brains!”. There is casual racism, hatred towards minorities, and to top it all off, participants seemed to believe that there was nothing wrong with any of this, like you see above.
Unfortunately, reddit seems to have disabled searching in The_Donald, so I can't poke around for what you describe. I'm not saying what you describe didn't ever happen, I'm sure it did, but calling it "common" is a strange exaggeration.
There was __plenty__ to dislike about T_D. No need to invent extra stuff.
Do you really use reddit search? Because it is a steaming pile of uselessness. You can still visit or subscribe to /r/the_donald, so I don't know if you're making this up or if you just don't know how to use reddit.
Only the ones trying to fight reddit admins were removed: https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/fi4ojg/the_...
- Are there subreddits where people call for violence against police in general? Yes, and mods tend to remove it when reported but it generally exists.
- Are there subreddits where people call for violence against individuals? No, because admins step in pretty fast if mods do not remove it quickly.
This is the dichotomy that you are missing.
Also, considering you aren't american, why are you so supportive of censoring political speech in the US?
By googling around I can easily find that members of the_donald created a list of thousands of addresses and phone numbers of people who are anti-trump. Or is that 'fake news'? The thing that actually got the_donald quaranteened (not even banned!) were calls to violence..
> Hopefully all State Police in Oregon refuse, hes serious. No problems shooting a cop trying to strip rights from Citizens. If he calls for help I'd come.
How can you defend that? Are you just disregarding all that because you have to be victim somehow?
When did those other subs call for 'shooting cops'??
> Also, considering you aren't american, why are you so supportive of censoring political speech in the US?
The US political landscape has a direct effect on the rest of the world. If your political speech consists of racism, sexism, and calls to violence then I personally believe we should absolutely censor that.
Honestly, everything you wrote is "fake news" or one-sided nonsense. It's the same nonsense parroted by the exact people I described. Every sub I listed has had members call for violence. Especially against the right, "nazis", cops, "bigots", "sexists", "racists", "trump supporters", republicans, etc. Considering you are virtue signaling against "racism,sexism", I'm betting you called for violence many times on reddit. How right am I?
> Are you just disregarding all that because you have to be victim somehow?
How am I a victim? I wasn't subbed to the_donald, didn't support trump, didn't vote for trump, etc. But this year I might because people like you are dangerous. Though I suppose in a sense we are all victims because speech got restricted but I personally was not victimized. Thanks for caring though.
> The US political landscape has a direct effect on the rest of the world.
Are you russian? Because I was told for many years that foreign interference was destabilizing the american political system. Funny how you support foreign interference and the destabilization of the US.
> If your political speech consists of racism, sexism, and calls to violence then I personally believe we should absolutely censor that.
Racism and sexism are protected political speech whether you like it or not. Otherwise, people like you wouldn't be allowed to use sexist terms like "toxic masculinity". But I'll defend your right to use those silly words because I believe in free speech.
On Reddit, and elsewhere, there's no shortage of people loudly proclaiming their love of the President. Sure, Trump isn't very popular on Reddit as a whole and posts involving him will be voted down when they show up outside of the usual echo chambers. But the posts and comments are still there. As well as being a constant presence on Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube. Political speech in the US is far from being censored in any way.
Probably a lot just like with every major sub.
> and to what effect regards your argument?
Doesn't affect it a single bit.
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23184110
"The problem is, you cannot have it both ways: either free speech is paramount, because it changes things in the real world, or allspeech is meaningless because it has no effect."
Wonderful little strawman with a dash of false dichotomy. The argument for free speech really derives from constitutional rights not on its effectiveness. Just like your right to life and liberty doesn't derive from how valuable others deem your life/liberty.
> You cannot build a large-scale, significant communications system without moderation ...
More strawman. Nobody is against moderation. I'm against censorship. I'm for sub moderation but also allow users to view the censored content if they choose so. Frankly, I'm more in support of allowing users to moderate more and mods moderating less. Let the community drive the sub rather than mods ruling the sub.
> any more than you can create a large-scale city without sanitation and public health systems, or a global rapid transportation network without commensurate epidemiological detection, management, and controls.
Okay, I'll try to enlighten you a bit. The question is what qualifies as "feces, garbage, disease". Would you be okay with /r/politics being banned? What about lgbt subs? What about atheism subs? What about feminist subs? What about /r/twoxchromosome since that is "transphobic"?
We'll try a categorical imperative. You have the right to ban subs but that right extends to everyone else. Would you support that? I doubt that. I'd bet you'd hypocritically scream "free speech" if the toxic subs you support were banned. How about let everyone enjoy the toxic shit of their choice as long as it is legal?
Like most HN folks, I have a few narrow interest subreddits I go to on non controversial subjects.
The rest of the site is just groupthink tribal warfare for bitter professional victims.
Although of course they do lack civility.
See https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014792387-Comm...
Generally, when unmoderated, the loudest user(s) will drown out everyone else
Reddit, up until some years ago, was great for political discussion. Simply ignore low quality opinions and focus on the few people who have actual knowledge.
Then the "safe space" movement started and anything that wasn't mainstream opinion was banned all over the place.
Suddenly, political discussion became impossible, because you could not discuss any non trivial things without few of being misunderstood and your account getting banned.
The "wholesome" movement on reddit seems like an example of that.
Mods are typically great though. They seem to try very hard to keep the discussion academic.
It’s still great for analysis related to American foreign policy, but it’s hard to take any other analysis seriously especially when it comes to Asian countries as the quality is lacking.
Incidentally, I was banned for saying that China would end up with less deaths due to the coronavirus than the US, as a result of their stricter interventions, which turned out to be true. The moderators of that subreddits decided that it was such an egregiously incorrect point-of-view that it had to be deleted, and the poster banned.
So no, r/geopolitics isn't really good anymore. It was interesting a few months to years back, though. But now it's mostly biased, moralistic and americentric takes with artificially limited debate, with such scathing and interesting discussion as "Western culture is the best culture, and that's why the US will be an eternal empire", or "China will be sublimated by the US just like the US beat Japan". This is a stark contrast to the more realpolitik, realist discourse of yesteryear. Non-China related threads are better, though.
Then it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff and the mods, (as much as I agree that in some subs are totally going for the echo chamber) have a lot of work to do.
It's bad, but really understandable
But open discussion is now largely banned. Each sub only allows you to repeat their own ideology else you get banned.
I deleted Reddit when that started, around 4 years ago.
So ... just like HN?
Nothing is perfect but I feel more informed and otherwise safer having discussions here.
You can have good discussions, but they must be at the margins, and stay away from the subjects that HN is known to fail at discussing.
On Reddit, especially in large or political subs, it's the exact opposite.
You're a racist, sexist, white, cis, male homophobic, transphobic monster until and unless you preface your thoughts with lip-service to all groups concerned, even if you're not discussing politics or social issues.
Try taking non-liberal positions e.g. try defending men in tech against the notion they're inherently sexist. You'll burn a lot of karma and get a whole lot of snarky replies "educating" you about the correctness of feminist ideology.
Even new topics like COVID are hardly better. Try making an argument and support it with evidence posted on some conservative or even just non-liberal source: about 50% of the time or more someone will reply with something of the form, "I didn't read it but your source is bad so you are bad".
After years of observing this kind of behaviour, and watching /r/ukpolitics be taken over by the same sort of extremists that trashed /r/unitedkingdom, I concluded the problem isn't really internet forums. Some of their mechanics like downvoting don't help as they conflate "I disagree" with "I think this post is low quality", something Slashdot for instance tried to avoid. But the underlying problem is liberal ideology. Specifically:
1. The belief that words are powerful and thus dangerous words need to be suppressed and replaced with enlightened words.
2. The belief that conservative views are dangerous.
The combination of these two beliefs causes them to repeatedly attempt to take over forums, often by becoming moderators, and then systematically "cleanse" those forums of conservative viewpoints. This behaviour isn't reciprocal - outside of forums specifically devoted to conservative views like maybe /r/TheDonald I practically never encounter this kind of behaviour, as the conservative mindset is that words/ideas aren't dangerous and thus free speech is to be valued and encouraged.
When one side in a conflict prioritises taking over and controlling conversation, and the other side doesn't, the natural outcome is that with enough time any forum for discussion ends up controlled by those who want to control it. Hence the widespread feeling amongst conservatives that the "mainstream" is biased against them. It's not so much an argument a specific set of groups but rather the general feeling that with time any popular forum gets taken over by people who view them as enemies.
If conservative viewpoints like that are dangerous to your health, then why shouldn't they be "cleansed"? Or did you follow those recommendations? How is it working out for you?
a) Strawman at least twice (once for bleach, once for "recommended"),
b) divide the question.
3. Paragraph 2: Assumed premise, personal attacks.
DonHopkins, for such poorly presented incorrect, biased and angry attacks (the term "argument" does not apply) you certainly have a high karma! For that reason I should examine your other posts on this forum.
For example, try posting about Intel in pc building subs. Or try advocating for anything other than passive index investing in /investing. Or say you like PHP for making websites in /programming.
Any idea outside a sub's main approved-idea-space is rewarded with hate and downvotes.
Do you think that the removal of the downvote capability solves this problem? What solutions are available?
I think the main issue is that Reddit has become more mainstream. My theory is that when a new website like reddit is created, the early adopters are typically more open-minded people by their very nature. Later as the platform is recognized as successful, the mainstream population joins. These mainstream users, less likely on average to accept new ideas than the initial early-adopter user base, then begins to drag the discussion into group-think.
My most pronounced experience with this phenomenon was with r/wallstreetbets. In the early days, it was actually a very interesting and unique community with rapidly evolving conversations. With the mass influx of new users in 2018 and 2019, the comment sections slowly shifted into parroting of the subs common phrases and group think. Now in 2020, you can almost predict the comment sections before you open it up.
Perhaps due to its lack of promotion and UI, HN has been more resistant to this shift, but is not immune.
My personal solution to this problem is to keep jumping to new platforms if an old one becomes too bias. When my favorite subreddits start hitting r/all, I begin looking for new ones that follow the same topics.
It's a classic case of a variant of the WWW-Eternal-September virus that had been plaguing the interwebs since the dawn of forums. There is no solution other than quarantine and moving to unaffected places.
- A thing becomes possible. Some people enjoy the thing, get together and form a community doing the thing.
- the community quickly stratifies into "creators" - the people who actually do the thing and do it well, "community builders" - the people who don't actually do the thing very well, but are good at building the community around it, and "fans" - people who can't really do the thing, but enjoy the community and hang around in it.
- if the creator:fan ratio stays within reasonable limits, the community will continue to be enjoyable and fun
- if the community attracts more fans, though, the community is destroyed. Either the urge to monetise overwhelms and fans become customers, creators become rockstars and the community becomes an industry.
- Or it drowns in its own bile. Fans don't actually contribute to the community, they just soak up every else's contribution. If there are too many fans, they drain the energy and ability of the community to self-sustain. Community builders "burn out" and creators become reclusive, staying away from the community.
Anything that gets too popular gets either turned into an industry, or destroyed by its own popularity.
I really think that the problem is somewhat embedded in two things: human nature, and practical limits of our attention. For the former, what I mean is that essentially discussions tend to get driven towards extreme or biased views, because people with moderated, centrist, or less extreme views are less likely to say anything. As the community grows, eventually there are enough people with extreme views that the limit of how many comments you are willing to read through is saturated with them. Eventually one view becomes predominant. And I guess, the last factor would be that people enjoy seeing their beliefs echoed back to them, as a form of validation - aannd we've hit peak echo chamber.
I honestly have no real solution to this, other than trying to stay within smaller subreddits, where the middling opinions are not yet drowned out. And preferably ones that are well moderated, and have expectations of quality posts (you mention HN, and the self-moderation of the community here is a good example, jokes and other shitposts are regularly voted into oblivion, although this trend has been slowly diminishing over the years). As for specific subreddits that are great examples, it is hard to point out, because they are so specific.
You used to get downvoted for disagreement. Nowadays, you get banned from the sub altogether.
HN: "php sucks because of those technical reasons". Reddit: "php sucks, period, and you are a moron".
Companies/lobbyists/govs have realised a few years back that reddit was big enough/influential enough to shape some aspect of public opinion, it is now quite obviously that they are paying PR companies to defend their lobbies/brand/products on reddit.
The other day I commented on a european sub-reddit, where they were discussing the move away from coal power plants as an energy source. I pointed out that the move away from coal was great but that we should remain sceptical of the "green" "clean" energy marketing around bio-mass power plants and also natural-gas power plants.
Immediately the comment became controversial with wildly varying scores of up and downvotes. All the comments that followed where quite adversarial and flippant, mixed with bland marketing statements filled with buzzwords about how bio-mass is sustainable and 'renewable'. I doubt this situation would have occurred 6/7 years ago. In this case it was so obvious that I couldn't care less but probably for some users they would be intimidated to continue to comment on the topic after this.
It's not just Energy lobby, you could say the same thing about Pesticides, Pharma, <insert major lobby group>.
Also on the shills, I used to go to reddit as a source of legitimate product reviews and recommendations, now it's obviously that every marketing person uses the platform to name drop their product and do stealth marketing companies.
As so many others before it, reddit has become a victim of its own popularity.
To be fair, advocating for new PHP projects here on HN is met with ... scrutiny to put it lightly, too... same for going against the "groupthink" when it comes to libertarian capitalism, gig economy or the latest JS framework.
There is so much dystopian doublespeak in startup marketing, and people continue to believe it, because not doing so threatens their careers. Of course there are also many startups out there that actually do improve lives, but I wouldn't say it's the majority.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_attachment
While group-think is real, the views that are allowed to be expressed on Reddit were not selected because a majority of users held them and pushed out those who disagreed. They were selected by the corporate owners of the site to promote their ideological beliefs, and to appease the very similar ideological beliefs of the major corporations who buy ads there.
Contrary opinions were driven off the site simply by repeatedly deleting the subreddits and users who expressed them. Down-voting or any other organic user interaction had nothing to do with it.
Placing corporate representatives as moderators is just a way of preventing the organic accrual of power to those with popular opinions that challenge the ideologies of the site owners.
> The delete posts about crime in case anyone notices any demographic patterns involved
Probably because, just as in every other country, demography is the confounding variable and poverty/inequality the actual predictor of blue collar crimes?
> corona gestapo
Because, after Belgium, Spain has the highest per capita Covid death rate in the world?
Now that the virus is out there, they are trying to make up for it retroactively with overly strict measures.
Is that a good reason to not be allowed to discuss the problem?
> Because, after Belgium, Spain has the highest per capita Covid death rate in the world?
We also had the strictest lock down in Europe. Children were allowed out for the first time with their parents on 5 weeks and were being shamed for standing too close by some reditors standard.
It's gone from "flatten the curve so the hospitals aren't overwhelmed" to some bizarre sort of virtue signalling where the more you complain about the actions of others the more virtuous you are. If you look at this study, outdoors doesn't seem such a problem. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058v...
If you view social distancing as a left wing/right wing issue, you should reassess your approach to politics.
When the left says to smash capitalism Big Social suppresses it.
Go figure.
But are they really massive?
If you take a look at a lot of those "massive" subs you'll find that certain posts from certain accounts always get tens of thousands of upvotes, and all of the posts from their real users get tens of.... well... tens.
If a reputation system on the internet exists, it has been exploited / manipulated.
What data do you have to support this claim?
I usually used it for fun, and had subscribed to some innocent technical subreddits, and memes that had nothing to do with politics or relationships; but eventually got dragged into these spiteful, petty, sort of ugly side of Reddit full of bad takes, top posts awarded for repeating same things over and over, namecalling, bullying kids, censoring people, etc.
The downvote button is used as a "The hivemind disagress with you, here is your -50 karma" and is never used for it's actual purpose which goes against the purpose of that feature.
Worst subreddit you should never visit are amitheasshole, relationshipadvice, programmerhumour, cats (they only post their dead cats for karma), pewdiepiesubmissions, dankmemes, worldpolitics, to name a few.
There are lots of popular karmawhores at the top of Reddit (like a shithead called u/gallowboob) that repost/steal posts from other subreddits to get karma shamelessly and he mods popular subs so he gets a pass, and he censors people that expose him.
Really, the Reddit drama is never ending and I'm glad I decided to come out of the pettiness of it all.
Did you see the one about the guy who ate 3 feet of a 6 foot sandwich? https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/ca7bdz/aita_...
I mean, where else are you going to find something like that? Not twitter.
Dunno. I've sort of embraced the dumpster fire and am happy to warm myself with the flames. It smells pretty bad at times, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a more amusing circus.
What is that post?! Can't tell is it's satire or people are seriously buying that.
Reddit was one of the few places where I occasionally found people with similar background to discuss more than just superficially.
That completely changed in 2016. Everybody with actual knowledge on the subject was banned from all related subs. Knowledge became a threat, only the "correct" ideology was allowed to remain.
Tbh, I was pretty shocked how easily people are radicalized.
Reddit is overwhelmingly populated by left-wing teenagers and college students -- so politics or economics discussions are shallow and fruitless.
HN is overwhelmingly populated by techies, heavily biased towards FAAMG and bay area, heavily biased towards web dev. Economics discussion here seems to be saner though with a massive US-centrism and anti-tax skew as people are 1%ers and many never experienced life outside the US, but if you dare criticise the big 5 companies or their products, prepare to be buried...
100% of Hacker News is moderated by the same people
Power laws are a thing, we shouldn't be surprised if 80% of the moderation is done by 20% of the people (& remember, power laws are recursive)
A lot of the subreddits in the image seem related. Almost as if the people who create the most popular subreddits tend to create more than 1 subreddit & know how to effectively run them. We can argue about how effective reddit is, but "being one of the most popular subreddit" should work for this point
I say this as someone who doesn't frequent the most popular subreddits or recognize who the mods are. But I do notice moderators tend to receive quite a bit of flak which isn't always warranted
Which is to say, I'd be interested if there were some citations of other moderators claiming these mods were injected or whatnot. But this "just stating facts" 5 people fact doesn't seem relevant
HN is open about it. That's the difference.
On others, not so much. There's been much discussion on HN with how it handles users from shadowbans, hidden rate limits, story weighting and so forth. I don't personally have a problem with those concepts at all, but it does seem weird to me that people here blast Reddit for doing the same things that HN does. There's been instances here of mods editing titles in order to appeal to the trolls (in hopes of removing flame wars, but an appeal nonetheless) for example.
Now there's a full different discussion with how HN and Reddit use these tools to try and curate quality however.
While they seem to do a great job, I think that's a bad thing.
Why should one person's opinion on what's okay to post matter more than the community's opinion? Isn't the point of voting-based communities like HN and Reddit to give the community power over what should be at the top?
What would happen if these communities were entirely auto-moderated? Software could automatically remove posts that break rules. I wonder whether that would help avoid issues like we're seeing here - where power is concentrated in the hands of the few, and those few have biases that can lead to unjust moderation.
Then one mod decided to actively undermine me, even banned one of my posts, because I didn't use PixInsight (like the rest of "the pros" do). I got my post back up, but that ruined the subreddit for me.
Funny thing, I grew up, graduated CS/software engineering, specialized in image processing and lo-and-behold, my techniques, though rudimentary, were pretty solid.
[0] old binoculars steampunk-ly tied to an old digital camera -- being a teenager with no income meant $0 budget -- but worked better than you'd imagine!
* Stack or integrate: this means turning 100 high-noise images into a single, low noise image. To do that, you need:
* Registration or alignment: this is simply making sure that the stars are placed consistently on the same (x, y) location so that when you stack you don't get trails or blurring. High quality registration can go as far as sharpening your end result if you manage sub-pixel alignment (or you can strecth for super-resolution).
* Post-processing: it can be anything from removing light pollution (important if you're shooting from within a city), remove gradients (airglow, or residual light pollution even if you are far away from a city), sharpening (Lucy-Richardson deconvolution is king here using gaussian kernels, but if you can aproximate a Point Spread Function -or PSF for short- you can get even better results), color correction, high dynamic range processing. Of course, this is an un-ending place.
PixInsight is a great tool, I won't deny that. But I had a great joy in learning how to program this things, and to me it's a lot more interesting researching how to do something, learning it and programming it, rather than having it done by somebody else, clicking a button and moving away.
Luckily for both you and I, Bennedict Bitterli has written a C++ pipeline for processing with great detail that covers registration, stacking and removing gradients. That's a great read that you can find here[0]. You can still visit /r/astrophotography and treat yourself to the wiki if you want something more down to earth and with less programming involved.
The one thing most redditors there forget is that AP, on a budget, can be as fun (and frustrating too!) as throwing thousands of dolars worth of equipment to the problem. If you have a DSLR (new or old, or a mirrorless, or a compact camera, even some phones have good enough cameras) and a tripod you can do widefield astrophotography.
[0] https://benedikt-bitterli.me/astro/
Edited: fixed a few typos
Pedantic notes aside, the point is that it's the least surprising thing ever to find that some subreddits have one attitude towards $THING and other subreddits have a different attitude. The site has hundreds of millions of active users.
It could certainly be the case (and it is probably the case) that most subreddit communities strive to be inclusive -- while there are still hundreds of subreddits with tens of thousands of redditors which promote and endorse assholery and/or bigotry.
Dacvak (114459) 8 years ago full permissions
synbios16 (28642) 6 years ago full permissions
gamingmoderator (5816) 6 years ago full permissions
mookler (6506) 5 years ago full permissions
Rlight (12185) 4 years ago access, flair, mail, posts, wiki
Analtoast (3337) 4 years ago full permissions
delicious_cheese (34636) 4 years ago full permissions
MisterWoodhouse (62091) 4 years ago full permissions
Redbiertje (59120) 3 years ago full permissions
Umdlye (9139) 3 years ago full permissions
MikeyJayRaymond (55501) 3 years ago full permissions
Greenbiertje (150) 3 years ago posts
TonyQuark (76908) 2 years ago full permissions
TurtlesgonnaTurtle (1466) 2 years ago full permissions
relaxlu (7013) 2 years ago full permissions
IwataFan (22448) 2 years ago full permissions
phedre (301354) 2 years ago full permissions
AutoModerator (8074) 1 year ago full permissions
MAGIC_EYE_BOT (399) 1 year ago posts, wiki
wrproductions (35774) 7 months ago full permissions
cyXie (2104178) 7 months ago full permissions
Hawkmoona_Matata (31402) 7 months ago full permissions
leakycauldron (1991) 7 months ago full permissions
LeafSamurai (53062) 7 months ago full permissions
Jackson1442 (13385) 4 months ago mail