Republicans still think they believe in limited government though. They don't notice the irony when they ask the government to keep the governments hands off the government benefits they like.
Almost none of those things you listed are extremist right wing. Politics are way too polarized and you're proof of that.
I'm not even sure what you mean by anti-feminist but I'll guess "hate women and their rights", which I'll say leftists are guilty of disrespecting and sending threats to conservative women with "incorrect opinions".
And anti-democracy is a funny point to bring up because a lot of far leftists from reddit are very pro communist and hate democracy.
On top of all this, you lump in anti-left and anti-liberal with your other categories of "evil", making anti-right and anti-conservative the good guys. Your bias is showing, and you're alienating political moderates in the center. This is why people are not voting the way you want them to.
> Almost none of those things you listed are extremist right wing. Politics are way too polarized and you're proof of that.
As is you immediately making it personal, but I disagree. As is mentioned elsewhere, "extremist" is a relative term. Plenty of people would consider what I listed to be pretty extremist... but had you made a good faith attempt to read my comment, you would have seen that the premise of it was to point out that there is an entire spectrum of "right wing" content allowed on Reddit, from the mainstream to the fringe.
>I'm not even sure what you mean by anti-feminist but I'll guess "hate women and their rights", which I'll say leftists are guilty of disrespecting and sending threats to conservative women with "incorrect opinions".
Incels, redpillers, mens' rights advocates, etc. And you're correct that this exists on the left, but given that I never claimed it existed exclusively on the right, only that it existed on the right, I don't know what the purpose of the equivocation here is.
>On top of all this, you lump in anti-left and anti-liberal with your other categories of "evil", making anti-right and anti-conservative the good guys.
Who are you quoting here? I never mentioned evil. I never made a moral value judgement at all in my comment.
But... anti-left and anti-liberal would by definition be right-wing. I don't know why that seems to to be controversial to you, as you clearly fall into that category yourself.
>Your bias is showing, and you're alienating political moderates in the center. This is why people are not voting the way you want them to.
Oh.... I see. You're not actually responding to me, you're responding to the strawman.
They knew what they were doing. They most certainly reached a point where they realized they wouldn't deliver on the hype and speculation they were generating, so they had the option to either tell people before launch it to dial back expectations, or to double down to sell more and assume people will get over it. They even went as far as not send out review copies before launch so their fans had no warning to cancel their preorders.
This is not the first or will it be the last game to fail to deliver on promises, but the game was practically designed to sell around broken promises. The backlash was understandable, and simply more than they expected. My surprise is that the article doesn't read of regret for making poor decisions but more of victimhood like they didn't deserve the backlash.
The biggest thing they didn't consider about is the fact that there's a large subset of gamers that have tons of time but not a lot of money, so the money is incredibly important to them and when they're duped into buying something like that which drastically didn't deliver, they have a lot of time to spend to make other peoples lives miserable. Just imagine how angry these people got.
I have it on my other monitor while I develop. I don't divert full attention to it, I'm just listening then periodically tune in when I'm in thought or need a small mental break.
That paper I imagine terrifies Reddit. They depend upon their users to create and engage with content, if they're willing to leave to create and engage elsewhere they then become another Digg.
This was done with small "hate" subreddits too. Imagine they did that with some of the largest controversial subreddits, that would probably make half the users pack up and go.
The comments here have this mentality of "there are people with different opinions from me, why don't these websites deal with these opinions". It's dangerous thinking that can be applied to your opinions.
The internet always worked this way. There are the cesspools, maybe things you don't like, but if you don't feel like engaging with these communities you simply keep going. Problem with these social media forum sites is that as much as you don't want to engage/debate with these communities they still use the same website as you so its unavoidable.
This is why centralizing these forums onto one website was a bad idea, blame that. Because now, there's too much money involved and excluding people of certain political ideas or whatever means you lose a substantial chunk of userbase, which means users would depart to another website.
Reddit once was a good place to engage in things like politics, but now it is a cesspool of left leaning people. /r/politics turning into a largely left platform has helped to give rise to the more extreme groups that feel ostracized. It is my opinion that effectively banning views that can at times be extreme (though non-violent and not inherently bigoted) only draws more people to them.
I don't blame Reddit for being too hands off, if anything I often blame them for being too hands on. That may not be a popular opinion; but I have in my any years in active online forums/newsgroups/message boards from the early 2000s, to now, seen this happen so many times.
A overactive admin/mod group always has a blowback, which generally ends in another community forming with more extreme views than what was originally the cause of the bans.
Yeah, exactly this. Many of the communities on platforms like Reddit simply cannot co-exist, and having independent forums for them meant they could operate peacefully without those who dislike the fundamental premise of the community worrying or complaining about their existence.
You could probably even compare social media sites to schools or prisons really. Tons of people with different, wildly incompatible viewpoints or philosophies stuck in a place they don't really care for.
I've never seen an active threat on Reddit, what do you define as dangerous? Can you give an example? I've been on Reddit almost since the beginning and I've never come across a post that I felt posed any danger. Maybe I'm in the wrong subreddits.
> The comments here have this mentality of "there are people with different opinions from me, why don't these websites deal with these opinions". It's dangerous thinking that can be applied to your opinions.
It has nothing to do with opinions. It has never been about opinions, and you know it.
It has to do with antisocial behavior. Antisocial behavior is inherently hostile and doesn't deserve a platform, which has been known to anyone who has ever ran any kind of social space for a long time. If you don't moderate antisocial behavior, you create a community where only that behavior thrives.
This is not news, and the real dangerous trend that I'm seeing is that antisocial behavior doesn't matter and should be protected. No, it shouldn't.
> There are the cesspools, maybe things you don't like, but if you don't feel like engaging with these communities you simply keep going.
Yes, except thanks to aggregators all the communities got, well, aggregated, and now there's really nowhere else to go. A cesspool used to compete with other non-cesspools, now we're all in just one big cesspool, because the quality of trash is that it affects everything it's in.
> It has never been about opinions, and you know it. It has to do with antisocial behavior.
It is my genuine belief that presuming bad faith (as you have done here) is one of the most common antisocial behaviors that people don't even admit is antisocial. It is toxic to the civil exchange of ideas. It's even mentioned in the Hacker News Guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html): "Assume good faith."
The other antisocial behaviors mentioned in this article (animal cruelty, r/jailbait, etc) are certainly worse. But they are also committed by people who know that what they are doing is socially unacceptable. They know this but don't care.
When people presume bad faith, they often do so completely convinced that they are the good guys. I am sure I have fallen prey to this myself plenty of times.
But this is why the attitude is so dangerous: "Antisocial behavior is bad, and I know it when I see it. I can be trusted to identify what is acceptable, and who deserves a platform." Well, probably you notice it when you see it in other people. But we as humans are really good at rationalizing our own actions.
For the record, I completely agree that moderation is necessary to keep communities healthy. But I think it's harder than people think to apply moderation in a way that isn't just reinforcing the beliefs and taboos of whoever is in charge. For example, I see too many greyed-out comments on HN whose tone is the same as other highly-moderated comments. The only difference is the opinion being expressed.
> It is my genuine belief that presuming bad faith (as you have done here) is one of the most common antisocial behaviors that people don't even admit is antisocial.
The bad faith is on the person responding. The post literally starts with "The comments here have this mentality", how is that not bad faith? Then they construct a strawman.
You want to give that power by acknowledging it with a response? It's the same problem as "it was about ethics in journalism".
Someone implying ignorance on a topic they should not have any ignorance on is acting in bad faith. There's no way people do not realize, at this point, in such large numbers, who is being kept out, or meant to be kept out. It was never unique, special opinions. It was always trolls, sexist and homophobic language, etc.
The issue is that some people think that language IS valid and SHOULD be included but can't straight up say that because nobody would support them in that case.
But this has never been about free speech, nobody prevents you from starting up your own website and promoting your agenda on there, if anything, that has gotten easier, as has already been obvious from the proliferation of problematic fringe communities (in case I need to define these think Stormfront or flat earthers).
"Bad faith" doesn't mean "I think this person is being unfair." It means "I think this person is being intentionally deceitful."
If a person genuinely believes what they are saying, it is not bad faith, no matter how wrong or misguided you think they are. You may disagree with the way this person characterized the other comments. But that's not the same as your accusation, which is that the poster is making an argument that they know is wrong.
> There's no way people do not realize, at this point, in such large numbers, who is being kept out, or meant to be kept out. It was never unique, special opinions. It was always trolls, sexist and homophobic language, etc.
I think this statement is at least as unfair as the one that originally offended you ("The comments here have this mentality...."). But I can tell that you genuinely believe this so I wouldn't accuse you of bad faith for saying this.
The presumption of bad faith is both a lack of imagination and a lack of information. The person cannot imagine how a reasonable person might believe something, and why they might believe it.
The accusation of sexism is a perfectly good example, with James Damore as the case study. His words were twisted into things he didn't say, because his uncharitable opponents couldn't imagine that he was simply saying what he was saying. No, no, he must be dogwhistling something far worse, it cannot simply be that their own premises are too narrow, that their own value judgements are coloring their reading.
As for ethics in journalism, I'm one of those "deplorables" too, and you know why? Because there were 100x more people talking and emailing about that then were causing amok on Twitter. If the black bloc shows up at a protest, you don't suddenly dismiss everyone else as car torchers and bus stop smashers. But that's exactly what the press did to gamers, and that's why they were so pissed off. And the more they wanted to be heard, the more fringe behavior there was to point to to support the foregone conclusion. When the police does it at the G20 and calls it kettling, the progressives don't like it, but when they do it, it's just fine.
What's particularly galling is that none of this was new: the online harassment, the doxing, the stalking, that was pioneered on Something Awful's leftie forums like Helldump and LF. And lo and behold, those people ended up in media cliques like Weird Twitter. Pots calling kettles black is not a new concept, it's just amazing they fooled so many into defending their incestuous little circle. History has been rewritten, and now apparently online trolls never existed until 2014, when the fire nation attacked, and everyone of import got amnesia.
Here is what I saw. To change my mind, you'd have to prove that there was a massive invisible shadow campaign that could somehow eclipse hundreds of thousands of views, posts and tweets:
You can't reason with any party that has already decided to be corrupt. So, in short: you don't.
You deal with this whole problem by not creating all-powerful giant aggregators like reddit that eat all other communities.
You deal with it how we did in the past: by creating zillions of competing communities and people choosing which ones they found palatable, or creating their own with their own set of rules. This usually results in a number of fairly diverse communities somewhat competing with each other.
So you're suggesting reddit admins, mods or some algorithm should diagnose antisocial behaviour using the DSM-V based only on a user's written words? This is genuinely what you believe?
Then point to this copious literature of which you speak, and describe how you would employ it impartially in a forum setting to diagnose antisocial behaviour. Frankly, I think I've been more than charitable to your claims so far, and you're just avoiding answering the question.
You've asked me to define what is anti-social behavior. That is an existing term on which lots of study have been performed. Because people don't owe you answers to a question you could research yourself.
People also do not owe you solutions to hypotheticals they never suggested in the first place.
> I've been more than charitable to your claims so far, and you're just avoiding answering the question.
> You've asked me to define what is anti-social behavior. That is an existing term on which lots of study have been performed.
So you're still not defining it or referencing it. I asked you specifically in a previous question if you're talking about the DSM-V criteria, or perhaps the DSM-IV. There are many more definitions of anti-social behaviour than you seem to be aware of.
> People also do not owe you solutions to hypotheticals they never suggested in the first place.
Except policing antisocial behaviour is exactly what you suggested, and that's specifically what I'm asking you about. So answer the question, or you have no idea what you're talking about.
I cannot imagine why you think that comic is relevant. Even if you think naasking is acting badly (they aren't), such a gripe doesn't even resemble a person in group X harassing someone about why they dislike group X.
>This is not news, and the real dangerous trend that I'm seeing is that antisocial behavior doesn't matter and should be protected. No, it shouldn't.
There was a time when approving of gay marriage or suggesting that women are equal to men in most regards would have been considered "antisocial" by a good chunk of the population.
There was also a time when it was not antisocial at all to suggest that certain races of people are superior to others.
Times change. Today's acceptable could very well be tomorrows antisocial and vise-versa.
I am not sure what is the point you're trying to make.
If we define a behavioral set, such as "antisocial", meaning, behavior not welcome in a society, why does the fact that we later expand this set indicate a problem with using the set?
because at one point the people arguing that certain races, genders, or sexualities are equal would have been the ones banned. That is the problem. Today's antisocial behavior could be tomorrow's norm. Unless you prevent them from making their case. That is to say, we also contract the set, we do not only expand it.
In addition, there is the problem of who 'we' is here. Today, the fringe on one side seems to feel it is self evident that they get to decide what is antisocial. They seem to be unaware that ~50% of the population is on the opposite side. And even more, they seem to be unaware that not everyone on their side takes it to such an extreme.
This is probably not an arms race ad companies want to play. Someone who has an adblocker installed is unlikely to be respective to ads, and by installing an adblocker they currently are opting out of from the ad vendors metrics. which is better than adblock vendors trying to feign ads loading or "interest" in the ads, such as addons like https://adnauseam.io
So its debatable even they would win the ad arms race, but they would also lose credibility in their own metrics as the easiest solution will be to start fooling ad companies that their ads are loading.
One of the Penny Arcade guys once related an anecdote about when he worked in a telemarketing call center. In this case, all the phone numbers he had were from people who had signed up for an anti-telemarketing service, which had then sold their list to telemarketers. He said that the people he called, understandably, usually responded with snarling rage unusual even by the standards of people getting telemarketing calls. The moral is, when people specifically take determined action to avoid you, and you go out of your way to circumvent them and reach them anyway, they're not going to be especially receptive or warm.
I think publishers deploying anti-adblock technology are making a similar mistake. When someone takes action not to see ads, do you really think they're going to respond well when you deploy trickery to show them ads anyway? Are they going to be especially well-disposed to your brand, or are they going to be filled with determined hatred for you? This is a losing proposition.
I never said it doesn't happen. You're the odd case and of course there's someone who had adblock installed for them. I just said "unlikely", because they went out of their way to install the adblocker.
One of the reasons for ads is not clicks, but increased brand recognition/familiarity. Brand familiarity and brand choice are proven to be highly correlated.
> Ads appearing when you don't block them isn't really an issue.
When you are blocking ads, do you click on them? I wouldn't: I'd instead be annoyed that I'm seeing ads when I have an adblocker running.
Yeah I do, that's literally what I'm saying. I've clicked on ads that have slipped through.
Most call centers has a policy to stop if the recipient clearly says no.
Is there statistics to support this as a business decision? How effective is continued pestering a person in order to sell a product. The Sales Pitch by Philip K. Dick comes in mind.
