600
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2023
600 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37750 readers
233 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
For a minority of users on reddit, there's a line. For me, it's forcing me to use new reddit. If that happens, I just have to quit, I can't stand it. I don't want to quit, I have a lot of subreddits I read.
But I saw the stats for the old school users vs new reddit/app users, and we're outnumbered. Reddit knows they might lose thousands of redditors but they don't care because lots will just switch to their toxic app and if they lose 5% of the stubborn old folk then so be it.
The stubborn old folk are the ones responsible for creating a significant portion of the content on Reddit. While they may appear to be in the minority, without their content, casual users will be less inclined to use Reddit.
I've been wondering about that. You know if there's a youtuber with 10 million subs, you'd think they're a big, important star on the platform? And then you find out that youtube gets 80% of their ad revenue from kids watching Baby Shark on a tablet, and your 10 million sub youtuber actually isn't that relevant at all.
Well I was wondering if there's a reddit equivalent to that. Like maybe reddit gets 60% of it's revenue from Indian cricket fans and we don't even know about it. I'm sure sports fans in general are a lucrative userbase. And then places like /r/funny... basically imagine who would be less likely to use an adblocker and old reddit and the app, without caring too much. That's low-effort content that basically runs itself.
At least, that might be what they are gambling on. I do agree with you that the old guard are very important for developing good content. I just don't know if reddit cares about good content anymore.
The rub here is content moderation. Remember when Amazon carried brand name everything, then it slowly became shitty offbrand ZERBONO and AQUIVOO socket wrenches and alarm clocks?
That could be reddit's future, times 10, if they don't get a grip on their spam bot problems. In the last two months, my sub of 60k started getting tons of offtopic posts from bots. Users would flag them as quickly as they were posted, but even with third party tools, we were starting to have trouble removing them in a timely manner. Bots don't sleep. Mods do. And without third party tools, blockers, all that...I shudder to imagine the cacophony of that many bots on subs like r/askscience.
It seems like a move to collapse the parts of the site that are not controlled by Reddit proper.
This is actually good for sites like Lemmy that have a more diverse and thoughtful user base. Reddit functions as a filter that takes on all of that thoughtless content so we are spare the bloat. I couldn't care less if Reddit succeeds or not as long as Lemmy doesn't turn into what it has become.
I'm ok with it. I like the tighter cozy feel of fediverse. there's less antagonism and bloat.
Give it time.
That is to say, to the extent that we can, let's be careful. We already see the same shit everyone criticizes Twitter for starting to show up on mastodon. It's often not the platform that causes problems, it's the people.
I think there needs to be a set of "commandments" for civil discourse on the internet. One specific rule I've made for myself but never heard anyone else mention is: don't dogpile on downvoted comments. I think everyone feels a pull to do it, they see a controversial post that they agree with, they see the top few comments are more of the same....so they scroll down to the lowest voted replies, expand them if they're hidden, get enraged by someone's stupid world view, and jump into a flame war.
Some might lump that in with "don't feed the trolls", but I'll counter with a second rule: it's better to just not reply to someone than to accuse them of being a troll or a bot. There exist people who live with a wildly different set of information from you, and thus often have wildly different worldviews. And that's ok. And if it turns out they actually are a troll or a bot, as long as you're replying, they're winning.
I agree. If someone makes an upsetting post, I ignore it. As far as my experience, engaging in it will only harm me. I see no value in responding. I even did a test. On RIF (it's possible this is sitewide on all apps), if a post was in the karma negatives, I would have to click on it to see it. About 95% of the time, I agreed that I did not need to read that garbage, so I chose to ignore without expanding them. I appreciated all the pioneers that had to read that garbage at first and downvote it.
Anyway, there's no sense in spending my leisure time becoming angry at internet strangers. I rather move on and engage in things that make me happy.
I do kind of think that if they're downvoted so you don't see them, I agree with you. But if no one ever challenges an idea, it easily appears as either consensus or maybe so obviously true no one can challenge it.