22289d

> I'm not sure a single "framework" would work for everyone.

I guess you weren't lying because that is not what a web framework is.

If it works for just me, that's a web framework. The fact that there are so many web frameworks shows that none work for everyone.

If you see the alternatives as moderate the thread or ignore it all, I agree with you. But for me the alternatives are moderate the thread or allow them to drag me into a hundred debates about a hundred different things. I was going to participate in the discussion either way.

I do not agree with your characterization of what's occurring here.

See the person above us:

>You're a fool if you think that the way reddit handles content moderation does not create angry people.

I never said that. And they're making personal attacks based on this thing I never said. That isn't what you just described.

Someone argued they maximize outraged.

I argued that they do not.

I don't think it's pedantic at all to say the goalposts are whether or not they maximize outrage.

I totally understand that the word's 'Reddit' and 'Twitter' and 'Trump' are going to trigger people into wanting to talk more broadly about those topics. There are lots of other places they can go and do that. I had a very specific and narrowly defined argument.

That was the final straw, yes. And if they were seeking to maximize outrage, they wouldn't have done that.

> I don't know about reddit enough and just struggling to even guess the context here.

Reddit is extremely massive. With uber millions of people on it. And anyone can make a subreddit about anything. And they get extremely specific. Like someone might make one called r/FuckHNpedants for people who dislike all of the pedants on this site. And they post screenshots of our comments and mock us.

So clearly there are going to be people who make all sorts of random subreddits related to women. Lets say some guys didn't like women with freckles. They might make a subreddit showing pictures of women with freckles and bash them. And drill down a few more levels and go in all directions.

Then you have these other people who get triggered by that sort of content and demand it all be removed from Reddit. They make subreddits like that demanding it all be removed. Historically, they need to get featured in a bunch of media before Reddit does anything. They then ban a bunch of them and make a new rule.

As per my original comment:

>Is either platform successful in their attempts? Arguably, no. But that wasn't my point, I was addressing the claim that they seek to maximize outrage.

I was responding to someone else who said it. They did say '...whose business model depends on...outrage'.

So ya, that interpretation is the logical one. If your business model depends on something, you would be optimizing for maximizing it over time.

> No, what I'm saying is they maximize outrage, but pretend that they care about civility.

Then you're wrong. They don't just pretend to care, they take actions. I've already given several examples.

> You yourself said neither platform was successful in their attempts

No, I did not say that. I said 'arguably' and that was precisely so people wouldn't try to turn this into a debate about how good they are at it. I said they try and they absolutely do try.

> because those "attempts" are there for show

And now you're contradicting yourself. You said they only pretend to care and now you said they make attempts. You keep flip flopping on what it is that you are even saying.

I can't read minds. Evidently you can and that's an awesome skill, congratulations. But everything I've said refers only to what they actually do. And what they do is to take actions that are clearly detrimental to maximizing outrage. Something you've just agreed with, if we extract all of your mind reading voodoo magic.

i said they do not seek to maximize outrage.

please keep the goalposts right there and address only that one specific argument. as it's the only argument i'm making.

I addressed a very specific claim someone made - that they seek to maximize outrage. And that is all I addressed. I am not interested in broadening the scope and defending everything about every social media platform - as that's what this will turn into if I do not diligently keep the goalposts exactly where I set them.

Here are the goalposts: 'seek to maximize outrage'

Please do not add any extra words to that, thus shifting the goalposts. Here you have added the word 'profit'. I never said anything about profit.

I'm unsure if you're making some kind of argument or just adding a footnote.

If that's an argument, it doesn't change anything about what I said.

So what you're saying is deep down they wish they could maximize outrage but they don't because they want to appease advertisers and regulators.

We're not disagreeing. I wasn't speaking to what's in their heart, only to what they actually do.

You're supporting my argument. You're saying it's not in their best interests to maximize outrage.

That's where the goalposts are and that's where they are going to stay: whether or not they seek to maximize outrage.

A good example of what? A platform not seeking to maximize outrage?

Yes. They banned the Donald Trump subreddit. That one subreddit produced more outrage than probably everything else in the history of Reddit combined. And they banned it. A company seeking to maximize outrage would not do that.

Edit: thought of a better example - Donald Trump getting banned from most social media. If they were seeking to maximize outrage, they wouldn't do that. They'd assign an employee to moderate everything he posted if they had to, but they'd keep him there, manufacturing outrage.

------

Twitter and Reddit would both be examples of the types of platforms you're referring to, that benefit from this outrage. And neither seems to want to maximize it.

In the case of Twitter, they prompt you to rephrase your Tweet if the algo thinks it's likely to offend people. If you post too much of that type of stuff, you get a form of lite-shadowban.

Reddit has for years coached people to 'remember the human' and backs it up with various rules and bans. They want people to treat each other well.

Is either platform successful in their attempts? Arguably, no. But that wasn't my point, I was addressing the claim that they seek to maximize outrage.

> That is a very disingenuous way to describe signups.

I wasn't describing signups, I was specifically describing the Quora signup. People have been bitching about that for almost 15 years and nobody who actually uses and likes Quora cares. It's like the notch on the iPhone. Only something people who would never own an iPhone bitch about.

I am not saying you should signup. I am saying it's ridiculous to complain about it when it's clearly not a service you even like in the first place. Why do you care what some website you don't even like requires?

a) that isn't what's keeping them. people don't stay somewhere because things that bother you, don't bother them. you didn't name anything they like about it.

b) the mandatory signup meme is and has always been ridiculous. it takes 8 seconds to create an account. for anyone who gets value out of something, that's not a big ask. if you're not willing to spend 8 seconds then it wasn't for you anyway.

That's my impression of Quora today too.

It was such a special place in the early years. Sad to see what they let happen to it. The saddest part is that it's surely deliberate. They have some really, really smart people working there. And they decided this is what they want.

I think you just set the World Record for most strawmen in one comment. Congratulations.

If you took what I said to be some type of blanket 'Reddit is a perfect and wonderful place' you misunderstood.

Man, HN has sure changed. Clearly I'm not among fellow hackers if people are worried about tone rather than truth.

If someone needs their ass kissed to recognize I'm right, that's on them. Not me.

> There is no "Reddit culture"; on Reddit, culture is scoped to a subreddit.

There is both.

For example, anonymity. There is nothing stopping people from using their real name as their username or openly revealing who they are, where they live and work etc. But the Reddit culture is to be anonymous.

Are there exceptions? Yes. But those exceptions don't change that it's an anonymous culture.

> These subreddit can be as varied in response as humans can

I've never been anywhere on Reddit that doesn't have the specific characteristic that I'm referring to. If people think you are wrong, they tell you. If they think you're lying or spinning bullshit, they say so. If they think your method is suboptimal, they let you know the way they think is best.

This also applies to people on HN. We're engaged in it right now.

Probably what's happening is I'm doing a poor job of communicating what I mean. To me if I say 'they aren't always right' that's enough and I have clearly articulated that Reddit can be and is on a regular basis, completely idiotic, absurdly wrong and all flavor of other bad things. But evidently not as people keep saying things like you just did.

lol parroting what they say on social media.

Very interesting way you put that and sorta gets to the heart of the matter.

To me it doesn't even make sense, like, why would I get my information on social media. I'm telling you what I've seen on Reddit. But you went to what people say other places. Which is clearly how a lot of you are getting your information.

And ya, I've seen the receipts. I've got some receipts of my own.

> Are you talking about specific subreddits or topics?

I'm talking about the culture of the entire site. From tiny subreddits to huge ones and every topic.

> I’ve found the negativity on Reddit to be more likely as to come from completely ignorant sources as anyone with actual knowledge.

Maybe we're talking about different things here. You seem to be referring to jerks. I was referring to people calling stuff out. People can call things out politely. One could say you're doing it right now - you disagree with me and you're explaining why. You're not being negative but what you're doing would be an example of what I mean. Redditors do this. If they see something they think is wrong, they say so. Sometimes in great numbers. Sometimes politely, sometimes very rude. Sometimes with the IQ of a hamster and sometimes it's a genius. But they let you know.

> I'm pretty surprised anyone on there for a long period of time would be so trusting of the community there.

I don't know what you mean by trusting. They're not always right. I don't automatically believe whatever they say. It's like in Jackie Brown. 'You can't trust melanie, but you can always trust melanie to be melanie.' I trust Reddit to be Reddit. If they see something they don't agree with or think is false or think is misleading or think is not the best way - they're gonna let you know.

That was an extremely biased and jaded characterization that focuses only on a narrow set of negatives.

Have those things happened on Reddit? Ya. Was that in any way an accurate summary of what Reddit is? No. And it's absurd to claim that it is.

"But look at this example and this one"

I could make a huge list of the times Reddit has been bad, too. That doesn't change a single thing about what I just said.

I guess it depends at what point you buy. A lot of people on Reddit got generational fuck you money betting on GME, Bitcoin and a lot of other stuff. But if you're getting your Reddit tips from CNN then ya you're probably too late.

> I’m curious what makes you think that?

15+ years of living on Reddit.

Is it perfect at those things? Of course not. Can you and I and others provide a bunch of examples of those things not happening? Of course. It's still damned good at them.

I expanded at length here on how this works with regard to people trying to promote their products: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37703112

But it applies to all sorts of stuff, depending on the subreddit. Investing advice, sports trivia, historical facts, whatever.