site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   28346 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 29, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's a little late, but I'm gonna talk a bit about the Reddit-Pushshift drama.

TL;DR: Pushshift is in violation of our Data API Terms and has been unresponsive despite multiple outreach attempts on multiple platforms, and has not addressed their violations. Because of this, we are turning off Pushshift’s access to Reddit’s Data API, starting today. If this impacts your community, our team is available to help.

Needless to say, users who moderate subreddits were less than pleased, to say the least as it is a massive blow to critical mod tools like BotDefense and access to a comprehensive list of historical posts and comments filtered by subreddit, user, date, etc. It's also a blow to users who used to rely on it for academic projects to seek out precise information using certain keywords in the right subreddits. One of the comments from that post:

The thing that is most exciting about running Pushshift has always been getting to meet and know amazing researchers in the academic field. The Reddit Dataset paper that I co-authored has been cited a whopping 630 times and it constantly grows. I don't think Reddit fully understands just how much Pushshift is used in research and the academic world -- but when we speak to the admins sometime this week, we'll try and make a strong case to keep as much functionality as we can in the API.

I realise this isn't exactly "culture war" material directly, but I believe it's relevant if a massive website like reddit with an enormous left coded user base takes a hit due to terribly received decisions like this one. We might see more and more jumping ship if this remains a one-way trend.

You probably do not actually care about this and will not deviate from whatever plan corporate has set out. Reddit will probably not actually see that big of a blow to its metrics, but I can foresee a small dip and a lot of mods leaving, perhaps protesting / closing up shop on the way out.

You continually fail to understand that you have staked the operation of your entire website on thousands of unpaid and unmanageable volunteers, of which you're now pissing off continually in half-baked schemes to wring more money out of the site. Even if this doesn't kill the site, it will definitely lead to a decrease in overall quality as the people who care more about having good communities are pushed out in favor of those who instead like seeing numbers go up when they get to mod more subs.

It's really telling how TheMotte had to move offsite due to increasing hostility with reddit and in the past year or so there was too much nonsense showing up on my feed through ads and "popular on reddit" that I have zero interest in. It seems they're just actively trying to boost engagement with currently trending posts and chat. The reddit admin claims it is to protect privacy and sites like these and removeddit violate the principle. But even with that in mind, it doesn't look like most people are buying it.

Do Reddit mods actually improve Reddit much? My impression is that the best subreddits are very lightly moderated and what mods spend most of their efforts on is exerting influence in various ways that make them feel important but don't actually benefit anyone but themselves. If they spend more time than I think removing spam, then I could be convinced otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be what they mostly do.

/r/AskHistorians is probably a case where draconian moderation improves the quality of the subreddit.

I agree, but it's rare.

I was never a mod.

I you need some moderation or else it just become ad spam (when it becomes popular enough).

Personally, I think the problem with reddit is that they picked a side. That side was able to do things (like brigade, take over subs, etc.) that the other would get booted for. Then came the moral imperative of 2016 and it went full mask off... Now, the (most) mods are not there to block ad spam. They are there as activists.

It's kind of like an immune system. If it does too little, you get sick or die. If it does too much, you get sick or die.

Good question, but I am noticing a trend in the results, so I'll ask one a bit more specific: Does anyone who has never been a reddit mod think mods improve reddit? And does anyone who has been a reddit mod think mods don't improve reddit?

This is the sort of thinking that drives the spotlight fallacy.

The safest neighborhoods often have the lowest visible police presence because everyone already knows the drill.

Do Reddit mods actually improve Reddit much?

I don't think so. I think most of the powermods certainly make it worse than if they didn't exist.

Askgaybros was one of the least moderated subs around, outside of spam, and it was also one of the best, so naturally the reddit admins had to step in and demand it get pozzed to hell.

That’s interesting and makes you wander why they are allowing that. My first reaction was Reddit would just turn every sub into bash gop faster but that’s fairly well entrenched all ready.

So it would seem to be less mod = more users = more profits

The commons already seem flawed enough in Reddit so less modding couldn’t possible make the commons worse.

So it would seem to be less mod = more users = more profits

This may be what Reddit wants, but it's not what the volunteer moderators want. The power mods wanted The_Donald gone because having a conservative community that large and influential on the platform meant a steady influx of right-wing users into other communities. This was referred to as "brigading", and the mods complained until the admins did something about it. Mods do not want vigorous discussion on their subreddits. They would much rather a circlejerk where all rulebreaking comments are already massively downvoted before a mod even gets there.

What Reddit wants is something they can sell to advertising companies. And when an ad appears in-line with user posts, it gives the impression that the people placing the ads endorsed the content. In fact, the way power-mods and anti-hate and pro-pozz groups managed to successfully get anti-evil involved is to get mainstream press (and thus advertisers) to know exactly the kind of things on Reddit. So the Marvel ad might be photographed next to /u/kikehater88’s post about blacks being used by Jews or something. This gets reported, and suddenly very important executives are having serious discussion with the ad buyers because that sort of thing makes them look bad. Reddit doesn’t want those kinds of user names, or that kind of content (or at least not in the open) so they can sell ads.

Keep in mind the axiom of social media if you’re not paying, you’re not the customer, you’re the product.

But don’t moderators become nearly worthless if it’s just decided moderation leads to lower usage? Is there any reason to think left people would use the site less if The_Donald existed (instead of getting in fights and using it more).

I guess I’ve had enough subs ruined from usage from moderation to realize it significant shrinks my usage.

Well there is some level of labor required just to remove spam and enforce the actually important rules. Reddit won't be able to get volunteers to do it if their every decision is second-guessed by admins, and paying employees to do all that work would be both expensive and anti-creative.

The Reddit model is basically feudalism, which makes it inefficient and unreliable financially. You essentially have to steamroll over entrenched interests if you want to get money out of the thing.

Do Reddit mods actually improve Reddit much?

I've been a mod so I'm biased but I'd say...yes. Reddit is benefiting from a lot of unpaid labour to keep things running.

It really is like being a janitor. When you do it well, people take it for granted. But people quickly notice when the rubbish starts to pile up.

Especially since it takes a small number of defectors (especially for small subs) for things to get bad. I've mentioned this before but we had a situation where one user was making 2% of the posts. And they were prone to drama. Such types eventually get banned (I could have taken a harsher stance on banning them earlier) but just imagine the disproportionate impact such an obsessive person could have on the climate of a sub if they aren't deterred.

If they spend more time than I think removing spam, then I could be convinced otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be what they mostly do.

A ton of stuff is done on the backend users don't care about. And yes, removing spam is one part of it - big subs like /r/movies and /r/sports would be unusable if mods didn't prune the 6,000 reposts of the same breaking news . Another thing is nipping negative shit in the bud before it becomes a problem

So long as it isn't too contentious, users likely won't notice or be thankful though.

Another thing is nipping negative shit in the bud before it becomes a problem

Can you elaborate on this?

As I said there are people who just run around posting disproportionately and being negative. One example is podcast threads: you can have someone jump into a thread that was just posted (well before they could listen to it ) and make snide, low-effort comments about guests or the host (including back-handed comments like "well, at least he had a good guest this time"). Then that's the first thing everyone sees and a significant portion of the discussion is not about the topic but whether the guest is awful or not in some unrelated issue or, even worse, whether the sub is too toxic and so on.

Then there's users who have some grudge with each other and it can drag out across threads and weeks. Nipping it in the bud by simply removing those comments removes the incentives for that pettiness cause no one will ever see it.

I've previously described the psychology of a certain sort of poster that seems determined to ruin a sub and such people just have to be deterred or banned early.

There's also inflammatory off-topic stuff like HBD that has, ime, never went anywhere good. If it doesn't violate the relevance rule then we're stuck with it. But it actually did make life more bearable for everyone to just not discuss it (it seemed to draw the above sort of people like flies). The sub markedly became worse when it actually became relevant and we could no longer remove it.

It really is like being a janitor. When you do it well, people take it for granted. But people quickly notice when the rubbish starts to pile up.

Repeating and highlighting for emphasis.

Do Reddit mods actually improve Reddit much?

Yes. I never spent much time on the yuge subs as a user, but I did mod a larger sub for awhile. There's an incredible amount of generic internet garbage that reddit jannies clean up on a daily basis. For the smaller, conversational niche subs (<25-50k users) mods don't make as many mod actions. They still provide an important service. Good mods set the tone and prolong the life of a sub. Up until it grows to maximum reddit velocity and is ruined by reddit growth. The Motte is an extreme example of autistic, niche discussion sub, but its mods were/are necessary to maintain course.

I had /r/themotte in mind as a definite exception, but as a user who has only ever moderated a tiny subreddit, the spam is not apparent to me, so I mostly just see moderators removing interesting comments.

I have a feeling that there's a reputation thing going on. If mods are active at deleting spam and maintaining automod to make it more difficult, then spammers mostly don't bother and there isn't that much work to do. But if people pick up that a sub is essentially unmoderated and highish traffic, then it'll be off to the races with constant spam.

Relatedly, I wonder how many mods do most of their work on mobile. If it's a lot, what happens if lots of them just quit when Reddit blocks all third-party apps?

This is somewhat unfalsifiable, but my guess is that we don't see all the work they do. Poorly-modded subs will have dozens of duplicate crypto-scam posts a day. My guess is that most of the mod work is removing spam and banning extremely obnoxious users, and only a small amount of time is spent enforcing political dogma.

Without mods, a handful of people could brigade and take over a sub pretty easily. Imagine if 100 people upvoted everything they posted and downvoted everything else.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats