Where Trolls Reigned Free: A New History of Reddit(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Where Trolls Reigned Free: A New History of Reddit
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/books/review/christine-lagorio-chafkin-we-are-the-nerds.html#click=https://t.co/FMrdDrVLue
32 comments
Basically none of these videos will have the full name of that person attached to it (if it is even known).
Nobody is going to find it by googling their name.
And many videos of people faceplanting going viral are actually going to be used to the effect of providing cred in that person's circles.
"Look I went viral! Hahaha"
That's people for you.
Nobody is going to find it by googling their name.
And many videos of people faceplanting going viral are actually going to be used to the effect of providing cred in that person's circles.
"Look I went viral! Hahaha"
That's people for you.
You're saying it's okay to bully people and violate people's privacy because it's good for them? Interesting argument.
If you really believe that argument, post the most cringeworthy video of yourself on the Internet. For the cred.
You're right that the way these things get found usually isn't by Googling. If something's on the front page of reddit, the most likely way is your friends or colleagues will run into it and pass it around. In smaller communities, that may continue for years.
But Google is certainly a way people will find it too, even if the name isn't in the post. Search engine 101: the way Google works is by looking at text in incoming links. If I have a few links posted on social media which say "Hey, chmod775 lost his temper in a restaurant and boy did he make a fool of himself," that's exactly what Google will point to. If this person isn't famous enough to have other high-profile pages about them, it's likely to be on page 1, or even the top link.
If you really believe that argument, post the most cringeworthy video of yourself on the Internet. For the cred.
You're right that the way these things get found usually isn't by Googling. If something's on the front page of reddit, the most likely way is your friends or colleagues will run into it and pass it around. In smaller communities, that may continue for years.
But Google is certainly a way people will find it too, even if the name isn't in the post. Search engine 101: the way Google works is by looking at text in incoming links. If I have a few links posted on social media which say "Hey, chmod775 lost his temper in a restaurant and boy did he make a fool of himself," that's exactly what Google will point to. If this person isn't famous enough to have other high-profile pages about them, it's likely to be on page 1, or even the top link.
> You're saying it's okay to bully people and violate people's privacy because it's good for them? Interesting argument.
No. Don't put words in my mouth. That's rude.
I merely said that those videos generally have much less of a fallout on people's personal lives than they are often made out.
No. Don't put words in my mouth. That's rude.
I merely said that those videos generally have much less of a fallout on people's personal lives than they are often made out.
The "Angry RV Man" went viral on VHS in the 80s, and even though Google didn't exist it effectively ruined his life. There is a very sad documentary called "Winnebago Man" about his current life secluded in the mountains just to escape it.
Think of it, the last 30 years of this man's life made a living hell all so people can laugh at his angry outburst. In no way was this good for him.
"Star Wars Kid" lived through hell in high school, it certainly didn't help him either.
Its fine for you who doesn't have to live through it to just laugh it off. But these viral videos cause real harm to real people.
Think of it, the last 30 years of this man's life made a living hell all so people can laugh at his angry outburst. In no way was this good for him.
"Star Wars Kid" lived through hell in high school, it certainly didn't help him either.
Its fine for you who doesn't have to live through it to just laugh it off. But these viral videos cause real harm to real people.
> are actually going to be used to the effect of providing cred in that person's circles
And some comments are questions about programming or accurate technical answer to them, but neither that, nor what I quoted, is relevant in this context.
And some comments are questions about programming or accurate technical answer to them, but neither that, nor what I quoted, is relevant in this context.
I was very happy with Reddit around 2008. "The pre-1995 Usenet is back, you can say anything you want and then enjoy the verbal lashings you deserve".
Around 2015 everything changed: you were either transphobic nazi or morbidly obese surgically modified foul-mouthed thingy, who had zher own pronoun. There was no room for normal people anymore.
Around 2015 everything changed: you were either transphobic nazi or morbidly obese surgically modified foul-mouthed thingy, who had zher own pronoun. There was no room for normal people anymore.
Seems to me like there's a growing backlash against the outrage culture that started halfway this decade. I hope it lasts and we can return to normalcy.
agreed, I've been seeing and experiencing more nuance in response to media recently. I wouldn't say it happened around 2015 though because Brexit/Trump seemed to cause a massive amplification from both sides.
We have to get back to a place of nuanced, policy-based liberal democracy as opposed to ideological mud-slinging, or the fallout is just going to get worse.
We have to get back to a place of nuanced, policy-based liberal democracy as opposed to ideological mud-slinging, or the fallout is just going to get worse.
This seems to invert the situation at Reddit. The article does it's best to troll, while the comments provide a level of sanity. Weird.
Is it strange that I find it somewhat endearing that this person seems to thing that:
1: Reddit was some place where all the worst of the worst people meet 2: Reddit was intentionally toxic. 3: Reddit was some singular hivemind, rather than small, clustered communities. 4: That there aren't any worse places on the internet.
1: Reddit was some place where all the worst of the worst people meet 2: Reddit was intentionally toxic. 3: Reddit was some singular hivemind, rather than small, clustered communities. 4: That there aren't any worse places on the internet.
The author has clearly never ventured onto 8chan. Which is probably just as well, given how they found ye olde Reddit bad enough.
I don't think the author has discovered user generated content before.
Which is a real shame, all things considered. I feel like the author is latching onto some of the most extreme examples of the worst Reddit's ever had to offer and then holding them up as if that's all the site ever was and ever will be. I'm about as far from a Reddit fanboy as you'll get, these days, but this still strikes me as profoundly unfair to the site as a whole and the many great communities you can find there.
Even the chans aren't as much of a cesspit as people say, imho, if you know which boards to avoid.
Sounds like the NYT is mad that all these internet kids don't want to pay for a subscription.
Any topic/subreddit not dealing with politics can be a decent subreddit. The best example is /r/Linux. When the code of conduct change came, it was unusable for 2 weeks. Now it is mostly back to normal.
I had a good time in specific reddits, which were not centered on politics, like r/xcom and r/shadowrun.
The author seems to have confused 4chan with Reddit. Not sure if the author is being sincere or just trolling at this point.
I must admit the author is definitely exaggerating about how dark reddit was/is or he hasnt actually seen the darker side of the web..
Nevertheless, there has been no other more toxic concept than reddit.
Micro communities that generate their content to be used by people who already are interested in that content to feed on their ego, while being monitored by a few people who believe are the top shit of society because they moderate a sub reddit.
Just head over to /r/berlin , a not even tech based sub or anything related to an ideology, ask a question and wait for the barrage of insults.
For average guy like myself, my comments usually downvoted on HN, while same are upvoted on reddit. Guess, where am I going to spend most of my time ?
HN could be compared to a single subreddit, not the whole reddit site. The comparison is unfair.
However, even if the comparison is unfair, I much prefer lurking in HN. The reason is the same that makes an average guy feel unrewarded: Top comments here are usually insightful, well thought, and sitting on real knowledge. It makes for a vastly better reading experience, at the cost of a poorer "interactive" experience. I don't mind and, in fact, appreciate it.
However, even if the comparison is unfair, I much prefer lurking in HN. The reason is the same that makes an average guy feel unrewarded: Top comments here are usually insightful, well thought, and sitting on real knowledge. It makes for a vastly better reading experience, at the cost of a poorer "interactive" experience. I don't mind and, in fact, appreciate it.
Yep. I honestly can't stand the pervasive self-referential, pun-infused standard reddit humor that overtakes every thread not marked "serious". I find it ridiculous that one has to mark a post "serious" in order to generate meaningful discussion.
On HN, unless you're arguing a point, comments and replies are usually about sharing insight. After the insight is shared, there's mostly nothing to say. You contemplate the insight, add your own, or move on. That's quite nice.
On HN, unless you're arguing a point, comments and replies are usually about sharing insight. After the insight is shared, there's mostly nothing to say. You contemplate the insight, add your own, or move on. That's quite nice.
[deleted]
> Top comments here are usually insightful, well thought, and sitting on real knowledge.
Uhh. one of the top comments for this story is this "insightful" gem:
> Sounds like the NYT is mad that all these internet kids don't want to pay for a subscription.
Uhh. one of the top comments for this story is this "insightful" gem:
> Sounds like the NYT is mad that all these internet kids don't want to pay for a subscription.
HN has the advantage of having a steady stream of unique content from all different fields that gives way to unique comments and discussion. Since posts here don't get recycled on the front pages, once a topic is discussed, you won't see it pop up again.
How about manipulating front page content to harass an unsuspecting user, juxtaposing public info such as an affiliation that’s documented on Wikipedia with content intended to gaslight the victim?
Earlier, popular content had links to endless malware.
Reddit always has been a cesspool. It’s simply symptomatic of a much broader societal cancer. I’m confident we will root out such problems in time, though.
Earlier, popular content had links to endless malware.
Reddit always has been a cesspool. It’s simply symptomatic of a much broader societal cancer. I’m confident we will root out such problems in time, though.
[deleted]
Ironically, this article is some really great trolling in itself.
What a troll this David is.
Entire subreddits -- iamverysmart and similar -- which are devoted to finding people who made a comment which was embarrassing in some way, and publicizing it widely. One day, half of the videos on the front page of reddit (default page when not logged in) were random cell phone and surveillance footage -- people who don't know they were being filmed -- doing something dumb or being jerks.
Now, those people were genuinely jerks, but we've all been jerks at some point in our lives. Should that really become an internet phenomenon that will track those people for the rest of their lives?
We've got the political mobs too (the liberal mob and its feminist sub-mob tend to be particularly aggressive in ripping people apart, with similar but smaller communities on the right).