back
3 comments
That's interesting because I consider Reddit to be one of the great victories of the Internet.
> 92 of top 500 subreddits controlled by same 5 people https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23173018
You linked to an HN thread which linked to a reddit thread as proof of this. I would like you to know that is absurd since the reddit thread makes an accusation with no proof.

The 'proof' is a screenshot of a post that was called '92 of the top 100 subbreddits controlled by the same 5 people' that got removed. Why did it get removed? Who knows?

Do better. If you want to be better than reddit don't do the same dumb shit that it does and check your sources.

Given that reddit surprisingly still has a working API, this isn't actually a hard thing to check. Here's a script that works courtesy of ChatGPT:

https://gist.github.com/bspammer/6b5eff6670e4b839ffea89ceaed...

The highest non-bot user moderates 12 subreddits in the top 100. There's quite a few users who moderate more than 5. I believe the situation was much worse a few years ago, and reddit the company put pressure on them to give up some of their subs.

.. the mods of most subreddits are public. This is a trivial thing to verify. It's as valid as any other information posted that you haven't personally inspected. I have no idea why you're so belligerent about this, but it's odd.
For the record, I'm not a fan of Reddit.

But there is something to be said about having the censor cabal out in the open for everyone to see. Compare that with Facebook or Twitter or Instagram, where there is no record of who is determining what is and isn't ok to say.

Why do I care? That it's 0.0001% more transparent of its top-operators? If anything, I at least can see who works under the VP of Integrity at Facebook via LinkedIn - I have no idea who GallowBoob would be if he didn't make it explicitly known.
The other million subreddits are most of the good part of reddit, IMO.
Until you get automatically banned from the top subreddit simply for commenting in a completely separate subreddit the mods don't like.
Being very active in the Facebook groups/pages scene, I can tell you that very similar situations happens there. Same thing for Discord. Even back in the 90's, it was common for people who enjoy being a moderator or admin to be all over the place.
current lead on r/relationship_advice here - none of these people actually "control" anything, and gallowboob (for instance) has largely stepped away from modding.

There's value in any information-sharing they do in that they share trends across subreddits that reddit themselves are opaque about, but the subs still operate autonomously.

It definitely is one of the great victories of the commercial internet (in “mobile” 2023 sans web for the most part, mind you).

BBS like systems and forums had been successfully in use since the early 70s. Usenet is more than 40 years old by now IIRC? Very similar function and open by design.

Even without falling into “Endless September” rose tinted glasses I would argue that we really, really could do a whole lot better in 2023 and going forward.

I guess someone must work on Ted Nelson’s ideas at least (Xanadu, etc)?

Reddit most closely reminds me of ezboard:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezboard

Or proboards:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProBoards

But Reddit is really bad at long on-going conversations unless it has enough to support its own subreddit.

Car maintenance forums are something I feel doesn’t work well on the Reddit system.

Or anything you’d want chronological or heavy in-like image/video embedding

How so? I thought they had terrible monetization?
That's generally a good thing, from the user perspective.
You may not be old enough to remember the internet before reddit. There were many separate forums dedicated to specific interests, and quite a few of those communities moved to subreddits, and the quality suffered greatly. I'm sure someone is going to chime in and say how it was the same thing with newsgroups before, but to me it feels like that time just before reddit and facebook took over everything was the peak of the internet.
At least subreddits are still searchable. I'm running into a lot of instances now of forums/subreddits turning mostly into Discord servers. It sucks when all of the troubleshooting and repair instructions get moved into a Discord server and become unsearchable unless you join discord.

Video game producers are starting up fan discords that also have the troubleshooting/bug reports channels for the game on them. Video game mod communities are moving to discord.

Its going to really suck when a few years go by and a company closes or moves onto a new game and shuts down their discord. A lot of community sourced info is going to be flushed down the drain if people don't archive it.

There are two different but similar effects occurring.

Dedicated forums for particular topics were generally tiny. A forum with 10k+ people was a sizable forum, and not many where that large. Small communities got very little attention from spammers, and while they had their own trolls giving problems they were much less rarely subjected general trolls unless something like 4chan or whatever came before it picked up on them.

The internet is also huge and has zero degrees of separation in most places. I could post a link to a tiny forum here and 1000 people may see it. I could post it to reddit subthread and a hundred thousand people could see it. Or I could get a front page post on Reddit and a million+ people could see it. And with it tons of trolls, spam, and general idiots will follow and quality goes to trash.

This barely has anything to do with Reddit/Facebook itself. It's the power of network effects congregating people. Facebook was always going to happen, maybe in a slightly different flavor, or slightly different form, but once we got the computing capability to have millions of people at one place at once time, someone was always going to build it.

People have a lot of nostalgia for those old forums and I can understand that to some extent, but most things that people complain about with reddit applied to the forums as well... often to a much greater extent.

Piss off the admin and you might be insta-banned with no recourse. You'd even lose connections to the other users on the forum and would have no way to reach them. You didn't have the option of opening a competing forum where all of the old users already had access like you do with opening a new sub. You'd also lose access to the posts themselves and any content you found useful for the private forums.

You were reliant on the admin to keep the site running. Most had extensive downtime. Things would often break. The admins would have to run charity fund raisers to keep things up and many would threaten to take everything with them if people didn't pay up.

You did have the option of opening a competing forum if you had a modicum of tech knowledge, and this was extremely common. It was also independent from the administration of the offending forum, unlike Reddit, where administration biases are applied to 300+ million active users, and a small group of rule obsessed powerusers direct a significant amount of the big boards.

Forum administration was terrible, but there was a far healthier ecosystem full of alternatives that no longer exists. Remember, SomethingAwful's overmoderation was what popularized imageboards for westerners, and Digg's failings were what popularized Reddit. There is no equivalent today.

In the same way that Walmart is one of the great victories of the retail industry.

It snuffed out small independant competitors, dominates an industry, and wields its tremendous power in a negligent, self-serving, and irresponsible manner.

Do you mean in terms of adoption, revenue, growth, etc., or do you mean something else? I can see that the business is successful, but from where I stand it's a bit of a mixed bag in terms of quality of discussion, experience as a user, treatment of its community, and perhaps its overall effect on the culture. Would like to hear more about what you mean, in other words.
There's a reason it's a meme that people always append "site: Reddit" to the end of web searches. It's one of the greatest sources of genuine, peer-to-peer information out there. They also have open APIs that allow everyone from researchers to developers to access it.
Hmm, fair point.

I think the main reason people search Reddit from Google is more that Google's search results are bad, not that Reddit is great. When I search Reddit instead of Google, it feels like a hack to work around the fact that Google is overrun with spam.

And, to the extent that Reddit is an essential information source, it's largely because Reddit (and other social sites) destroyed the small websites and blogosphere where this information used to live. Reddit is now kind of the only game in town, which to me is a success for that business, but overall a failure for the web. Compare it to Walmart and Amazon in the retail space: is the fact that we now only shop with those massive companies a victory for the wider retail landscape, or just for those corporations?

Anyway, good point, thank you for the response.I would still like to hear what the original commenter has to say.

It’s demonstrably false that it’s a source of “genuine, peer-to-peer information”.

What you find on Reddit represents the views of a small number of moderators and PR organizations.

Thanks to ChatGPT that is about to become a thing of the past. First the APIs, and then the content. There was already quite a lot of paid fluff on Reddit, but it was fairly easy to recognize. Now it's easier to make and more plausible sounding, and it's going to completely drown out the humans. The value of "site:reddit.com" is plummeting.
Please. Are you saying people would not have figured out how to host personal communities if it wasn't for Reddit? Oh wait... They did that long before Reddit even existed.
I think Reddit can claim credit for making an easy framework for creating new communities, unifying the UI experience, and making discovery somewhat easier.

I still think it has devolved into one of the biggest tire fires on the Internet, but it was a cute idea. Maybe the next attempt will suck less.

I think it worked quite well at first, because it had mostly-democratic algorithms. It was distributed curation that generally followed common sense.

Before that, I remember slashdot, which was pretty good at culling comments, but article selection was not democratic.

But money screws up everything.

Slashdot's system works better than Reddit's or HNs, but unfortunately Slashdot fell for other reasons (gross mismanagement, nonexistent editing, etc) Slashdot's moderation was great though.

Specifically, I really like the way Slashdot provides more categories for rating comments. '+5 Funny' vs '+5 Insightful' is a very useful distinction. '-1 Off Topic' vs '-1 Flamebait/Troll' is a useful distinction. I don't want to read off topic spam, but I often do want to read unpopular dissenting opinions. Slashdot let me read the "trolls" (dissenters) without having to wade through the literal spam. Great system, HN and reddit would be better if they had something similar.

I wish we’d have less of these “victories” that go from a half decent forum software to an ad-ridden hellhole full of childish gay jokes and regurgitated memes in place of actual discussion.
If that is the case I suppose we have drastically different ideas about what "the Internet" is.
as well as "victory"
I really like some of the content on Reddit, and especially the variety. But the childishness.....
It has been a great victory for centralisation.
With their blatantly sexist and racist policies, and their Free Speech bait & switch I vehemently disagree: From reddit a employee:

"Our rule1 protects groups that are attacked based on a vulnerability, which doesn't pertain to white people or men as a group." Screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/NgOxEg0.png

What is rule 1?

"Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned." (https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)

So in practice, according to one of their employees it's actually:

"Remember the non-white male human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking non-white people or women. Everyone except white people and men have a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and users that incite violence or that promote hate against non-white people or women will be banned."

And this is absolutely born out in their repeated banning of male-centric subs, while the most toxic community I've ever seen remains, because it's wildly sexist against the correct gender. And there are multiple "fragile white redditor" type subs also, but all other "fragile <race> redditor" subs were instantly banned.

And the bait & switch:

"We want to democratize the traditional model by giving editorial control to the people who use the site, not those who run it."

— Reddit FAQ 2005

"We've always benefited from a policy of not censoring content"

— u/kn0thing 2008

"A bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web? I bet they would like it," he replies. [reddit]'s the digital form of political pamplets."

— u/kn0thing 2012

"We will tirelessly defend the right to freely share information on reddit in any way we can, even if it is offensive or discusses something that may be illegal."

— u/reddit 2012

"We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it. Not because that's the law in the United States - because as many people have pointed out, privately-owned forums are under no obligation to uphold it - but because we believe in that ideal independently, and that's what we want to promote on our platform. We are clarifying that now because in the past it wasn't clear, and (to be honest) in the past we were not completely independent and there were other pressures acting on reddit. Now it's just reddit, and we serve the community, we serve the ideals of free speech, and we hope to ultimately be a universal platform for human discourse (cat pictures are a form of discourse)."

— u/yishan 2012

"Neither Alexis [u/kn0thing] nor I created Reddit to be a bastion of free speech"

>— u/spez 2015

> And this is absolutely born out in their repeated banning of male-centric subs, while the most toxic community I've ever seen remains, because it's wildly sexist against the correct gender.

They banned a load of female-centred subreddits too, a couple of years back. The moderators of these subs then set up their own Reddit-like forum at https://ovarit.com, with a mission to uplift women's voices, especially on topics where they had been censored on Reddit.

Reddit also discriminates specifically against homosexual women, in similar ways: /r/lesbians is a pornography forum dedicated to the male gaze, while /r/actuallesbians is filled with men pretending to be women. Any lesbian subreddit that is created exclusively for actual female women to use gets swiftly banned, and similarly for comments that support being exclusively same-sex attracted. This sort of 'progressive' misogyny and homophobia is increasingly common in other forums too, not just on Reddit.

The common theme of all this banning and censorship is users not toeing the line towards a particular set of US-centric political viewpoints that are currently popular amongst those who call themselves 'progressive'. Though in reality their views and actions are regressive and authoritarian.

Reddit is one part of the web. It's a privately controlled company. It should never have accumulated as much importance as it has. We need to design the next Reddits so they're credibly neutral parts of the internet with their own, distributed controls.
The saga of Violentacrez and /r/jailbait showed that the folks who run Reddit have zero integrity.
I hadn't heard of this guy, so I just looked him up. He ran a subreddit for sharing photographs of children for the express purpose of jerking off to, and the CEO of Reddit at the time (Yishan Wong) defended that? That's bad indeed.
On the flip side, the knee jerk reaction "think of the children" has resulted in many awful policies which do more aggregate harm than good. It is useful to have someone defend things which are distasteful but not illegal. When we snuff out a particular bit of speech we should have to think about it, however briefly.
I don't think so. The legal and moral principle of free speech is meant to protect different political, scientific, philosophical, etc. views. It's not meant to protect a pedophile's right to sexualize children. What do we lose by censoring those people?
>It is useful to have someone defend things which are distasteful but not illegal.

I'm sorry, providing a space for pedophiles to find each other and share content to build community is not 'useful'.

> When we snuff out a particular bit of speech we should have to think about it, however br

Reddit is not the government. They can't "snuff out" speech. They have no social responsibility to provide a community space to pedophiles.

That was back when reddit was 'absolute free speech' oriented and nothing the guy posted was illegal.