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 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.
> 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.
>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.
> 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 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.
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.
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 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.