An academic perspective: Reddit sucks
Here are some of the highlights:
- being labeled as a troll is a way of silencing the transgressor, as well as shutting down debate and self–reflection amongst community members
- Karma is "sometimes abused by Redditors attempting to punish or censor viewpoints that do not match their own"
- there is still an expectation of truthfulness amongst some community members. Without an assumption (and expectation) of authenticity coming from the developers of Reddit themselves
- Some Redditors were on a witch hunt: they made posts sharing identifying information about the puppet master behind the Grandpa Wiggly character. Pictures were posted, threats were made
- Of particular interest here is the visceral reaction exhibited
- I did not see any suggestions of illegal behaviour... The same cannot be said elsewhere on Reddit.
- bad advice runs rampant... a young man had discovered that his girlfriend had been cheating on him... the most popular (and most upvoted) comments giving advice were juvenile and vindictive. The young man ended up acting on some of the more vindictive suggestions
Academic conclusion? Reddit sucks.
posted by Lou franklin at 10:30 PM
17 Comments:
Great post, Lou! Now write something similar about evolution and whether Jesus existed!
Why?
Because it seems you only respect the conclusions of academia when it suits you.
WTF are you rambling about?
He's saying that you are only highlighting this particular study because it portrays reddit negatively. I thought that was fairly clear. Basically, if a study or article reaches a negative conclusion abuot reddit, you will highlight and celebrate it. It a study or article portrays reddit positively, you will ignore it. That is because a positive article doesn't fit the narrative you are trying to present here. For example, here are some studies you will never make a blog post about:
link
link
link
link
You know - the way you think evolution isn't real, and that Jesus was a real historical figure.
It seems you're perfectly happy to cite academic writing when it suits you, yet similarly happy to dismiss it when you don't like it.
If it's OK for you to treat academic research that way, why should I not then simply dismiss this report as wrong?
What part do you think is "wrong"? The posts that she wrote about are still there for you to read.
There is a name for people who think "that Jesus was a real historical figure". They are called "educated people".
> He's saying that you are only highlighting this particular study because it portrays reddit negatively. I thought that was fairly clear.
You were wrong. How does "write something similar about evolution and whether Jesus existed" say "you are only highlighting this particular study because it portrays reddit negatively"? WTF? Are you on crack? And how is that "fairly clear"?
Thanks for the article written by the founder of the site though. Surprising that it's positive. Dumbass.
Hey, LouF. You'll never guess which subreddits I control now.
I heard that they gave Facehammer some subreddits because they felt bad for him because of his AIDS.
Does Facehammer have AIDS?
Hey LouF, looks like your old subreddits are active again!
http://www.reddit.com/r/Dumbasses/comments/jl21e/dumbass_louf_says_he_cant_recommend_reddit/
I heard that krispykrackers gave those subreddits to Facehammer because she felt bad for him because of his AIDS.
Why do I feel like eating a cheeseburger all of a sudden?
"Reddit is shit because it was designed to be shit, and the users are juvenile and vindictive."
Can't imagine why you would be labeled a troll with thoughtful analysis like that (and I hate Reddit!)
It was thoughtful analysis. I even offered an academic perspective. Reddit is a horrible place by design. They purposely silenced and punished opposing viewpoints.
They silence opposing viewpoints as a collective when that person is being an asshole. That's how you keep only nice people in the community.
They also silence opposing viewpoints when those viewpoints are clearly wrong and based on no factual evidence. And remember that each subreddit is different. Each community has a personality.
Bullshit. They silence opposing views because they don't like opposing views.
When Bush was president there were thousands of "impeach Bush" threads. If you posted "look, get real, they aren't going to impeach Bush", they would downvote you into oblivion.
Reddit noticed that and built a new "feature" that would prevent you from posting more than once every 10 minutes if you had low comment karma.
Get that? So the insane "impeach Bush" guys could post as often as they wanted to but reddit figured out a way to censor the rational "Bush won't be impeached" guys.
And they weren't censored because they were "assholes" or their "viewpoints were clearly wrong and based on no factual evidence". They were right and Reddit knew it. They were censored because Reddit is run by liberals and they don't want opposing views.
That censorship is still built into reddit today, and no, each subreddit is NOT different with its own "personality". That is across all subReddits.
Post a Comment
<< Home