comment
stringlengths 1
9.9k
| context
listlengths 0
835
|
|---|---|
>
Are there any?
I know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?
This post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others."
] |
>
From the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom.
The real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.
On top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on."
] |
>
The real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.
Good point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.
Just an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.
I'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now."
] |
>
How do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve."
] |
>
What's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?"
] |
>
I’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard."
] |
>
Would you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?
Isn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet"
] |
>
I think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule."
] |
>
Pros:
the sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.
cons:
encourages echo chambers
it removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs
may catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately"
] |
>
encourages echo chambers
Echo chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.
it removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs
This doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.
may catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net
I've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.
Then, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net"
] |
>
Echo chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help.
And the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.
Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity.
No. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)
This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.
No. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.
This doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.
You'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.
I've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc.
Question: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?
It seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.
Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.
We already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity."
] |
>
I'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.
And the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.
4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.
We have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.
I've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.
Simulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?"
] |
>
I'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.
Sure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.
We have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.
This isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise."
] |
>
Sure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.
Maybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.
This isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.
It's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.
And it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum."
] |
>
I think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?"
] |
>
The internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum."
] |
>
While there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP."
] |
>
How often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers."
] |
>
Well... three things come to mind.
in some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.
let's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, "behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x."
now let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.
if you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \~4,000 genuine "perspective" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.
and on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \~400k.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?"
] |
>
This might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from.
As a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”
If you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected.
TLDR: worry about yourself
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k."
] |
>
Straw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself"
] |
>
We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?
“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane"
] |
>
You're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”"
] |
>
He’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view."
] |
>
Not at all... the conversation is about why an "echo chamber" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.
They're just saying "it is bad, you're wrong".
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it."
] |
>
But actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\"."
] |
>
I'm not following what you mean by that.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP."
] |
>
OP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that."
] |
>
I think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite
There are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives."
] |
>
Not everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.
If you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions"
] |
>
If you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.
And we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective."
] |
>
I don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer."
] |
>
Toxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions."
] |
>
Yes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.
No one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?"
] |
>
Op was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve."
] |
>
Hahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion"
] |
>
Yea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?"
] |
>
I'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels."
] |
>
My idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁"
] |
>
I feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance "hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like" that would probs be easier
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation."
] |
>
A lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier"
] |
>
I think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.
If we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.
And you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing"
] |
>
The root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.
You're delusional if that's what you think.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it."
] |
>
Godwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think."
] |
>
You can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind"
] |
>
Because your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind"
] |
>
Can you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism"
] |
>
Sure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?"
] |
>
I gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.
I'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.
Someone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.
Except, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea"
] |
>
Wouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me."
] |
>
That's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me."
] |
>
The end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic."
] |
>
I think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.
I'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system."
] |
>
My post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits."
] |
>
You accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it "toxic" because it justifies my internal belief system.
You also ignored all points I made in support of my position.
This is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats."
] |
>
See here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that.
I didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good.
For example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.
I don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.
Doing so is the text book definition of discrimination.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users."
] |
>
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?
Except this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize "hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.
Blacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination."
] |
>
You are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society."
] |
>
On a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.
For instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone.
Am I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination."
] |
>
The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.
It would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.
It is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.
This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole.
For instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.
But asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?
And another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.
It was a valiant effort though...
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that."
] |
>
Creating what we call "echo chambers" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.
I consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.
You can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our "scroll past" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though..."
] |
>
The harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. "I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life." It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.
But even if you don't buy the whole "different viewpoints are good for you" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on."
] |
>
You could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.
Really though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.
If you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of "toxic" people with your current mindset, though!
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them."
] |
>
But then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits.
For example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits.
As a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!"
] |
>
It seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?"
] |
>
Standing up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help"
] |
>
Strawmanning much there?
No (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to
stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.
What is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.
And you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.
You can, of course, say "I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies".
To put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the "Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on."
] |
>
Didn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships."
] |
>
Possbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit."
] |
>
This feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban."
] |
>
How?
I can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution."
] |
>
If the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed.
You requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.
To do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you."
] |
>
It's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.
I'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history?
Secondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community."
] |
>
The risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.
From my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?"
] |
>
!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.
Privacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.
Also, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like "because you've shown interest in a similar community." Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.
And besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone."
] |
>
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility."
] |
>
You can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.
To block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards"
] |
>
This already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform."
] |
>
I’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:
1) to see what they think and why.
2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me
3) what issues are important to them.
So I’d be blocked from your feed?
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now."
] |
>
I personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't "insane", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?"
] |
>
They kinda already do
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers."
] |
>
You really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do"
] |
>
If your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?"
] |
>
To sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I also think that you’re making a lot of assumptions on the effects it would have on redditor behavior.
Would people decide to leave controversial subs in order to have their opinions heard by more people on the controversial ones? I think most would choose the subs that they feel most emotionally connected to, and for many people belonging to a controversial or ‘besieged’ community provides that sense of connection. And if they really wanted to have a posts seen by everyone, they’d just make a milquetoast alt account.
But for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. It’s a very conservative proposal, when you really think about it, putting freedom from being exposed to unpleasantness above freedom of expression.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?",
">\n\nIf your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem."
] |
>
To sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment.
Censorship has certain connotations though, and it is antithetical to what I'm proposing in my opinion because it is another way of limiting your choice in the matter. I've explained elsewhere that i consider this a necessary simulation of the natural barriers to speech which we need. If you're sick of the diatribe going on at a certain gathering, and you physically leave, putting distance between you so that nobody can communicate, are you censoring that group? Not exactly.
But for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not.
This is predicated on an assumption that what I am proposing is censorship. Having a decent conversation with people of opposing views is certainly an improvement to being forced into an argument with them. Not having the ability to put distance between ourselves and other people tends to lend to the latter scenario. I believe this is a contributing factor to the increase in hostilities between groups over the internet.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?",
">\n\nIf your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem.",
">\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I also think that you’re making a lot of assumptions on the effects it would have on redditor behavior. \nWould people decide to leave controversial subs in order to have their opinions heard by more people on the controversial ones? I think most would choose the subs that they feel most emotionally connected to, and for many people belonging to a controversial or ‘besieged’ community provides that sense of connection. And if they really wanted to have a posts seen by everyone, they’d just make a milquetoast alt account. \nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. It’s a very conservative proposal, when you really think about it, putting freedom from being exposed to unpleasantness above freedom of expression."
] |
>
I’m confused, can’t you just mute the subreddit you’d rather not see or hear from?
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?",
">\n\nIf your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem.",
">\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I also think that you’re making a lot of assumptions on the effects it would have on redditor behavior. \nWould people decide to leave controversial subs in order to have their opinions heard by more people on the controversial ones? I think most would choose the subs that they feel most emotionally connected to, and for many people belonging to a controversial or ‘besieged’ community provides that sense of connection. And if they really wanted to have a posts seen by everyone, they’d just make a milquetoast alt account. \nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. It’s a very conservative proposal, when you really think about it, putting freedom from being exposed to unpleasantness above freedom of expression.",
">\n\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment.\n\nCensorship has certain connotations though, and it is antithetical to what I'm proposing in my opinion because it is another way of limiting your choice in the matter. I've explained elsewhere that i consider this a necessary simulation of the natural barriers to speech which we need. If you're sick of the diatribe going on at a certain gathering, and you physically leave, putting distance between you so that nobody can communicate, are you censoring that group? Not exactly. \n\n\nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. \n\nThis is predicated on an assumption that what I am proposing is censorship. Having a decent conversation with people of opposing views is certainly an improvement to being forced into an argument with them. Not having the ability to put distance between ourselves and other people tends to lend to the latter scenario. I believe this is a contributing factor to the increase in hostilities between groups over the internet."
] |
>
That wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers?
They implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.
There is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.
Besides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?",
">\n\nIf your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem.",
">\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I also think that you’re making a lot of assumptions on the effects it would have on redditor behavior. \nWould people decide to leave controversial subs in order to have their opinions heard by more people on the controversial ones? I think most would choose the subs that they feel most emotionally connected to, and for many people belonging to a controversial or ‘besieged’ community provides that sense of connection. And if they really wanted to have a posts seen by everyone, they’d just make a milquetoast alt account. \nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. It’s a very conservative proposal, when you really think about it, putting freedom from being exposed to unpleasantness above freedom of expression.",
">\n\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment.\n\nCensorship has certain connotations though, and it is antithetical to what I'm proposing in my opinion because it is another way of limiting your choice in the matter. I've explained elsewhere that i consider this a necessary simulation of the natural barriers to speech which we need. If you're sick of the diatribe going on at a certain gathering, and you physically leave, putting distance between you so that nobody can communicate, are you censoring that group? Not exactly. \n\n\nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. \n\nThis is predicated on an assumption that what I am proposing is censorship. Having a decent conversation with people of opposing views is certainly an improvement to being forced into an argument with them. Not having the ability to put distance between ourselves and other people tends to lend to the latter scenario. I believe this is a contributing factor to the increase in hostilities between groups over the internet.",
">\n\nI’m confused, can’t you just mute the subreddit you’d rather not see or hear from?"
] |
>
That wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers?
They implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.
As fun as that could be to watch, I don't think that would be a problem. At least I would go about it so that you're not blocking users directly, just the subreddits, so there's far less than thousands of entities being blocked in a single operation. It would affect what content you see on per user basis though.
There is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.
I suppose that depends on how you look at it. Social media sites have some interaction between users, so reducing toxicity to improve the community could give reddit a bump in competitive edge once Elon's plotting comes to fruition -- we'll see. And it wouldn't hurt in avoiding the big threats to social media. All social media converging toward being the same conglomerate is not a boat I'd want to be in, but that's me.
Besides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.
And you should have every right. I'd just hope to minimize the consequences.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?",
">\n\nIf your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem.",
">\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I also think that you’re making a lot of assumptions on the effects it would have on redditor behavior. \nWould people decide to leave controversial subs in order to have their opinions heard by more people on the controversial ones? I think most would choose the subs that they feel most emotionally connected to, and for many people belonging to a controversial or ‘besieged’ community provides that sense of connection. And if they really wanted to have a posts seen by everyone, they’d just make a milquetoast alt account. \nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. It’s a very conservative proposal, when you really think about it, putting freedom from being exposed to unpleasantness above freedom of expression.",
">\n\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment.\n\nCensorship has certain connotations though, and it is antithetical to what I'm proposing in my opinion because it is another way of limiting your choice in the matter. I've explained elsewhere that i consider this a necessary simulation of the natural barriers to speech which we need. If you're sick of the diatribe going on at a certain gathering, and you physically leave, putting distance between you so that nobody can communicate, are you censoring that group? Not exactly. \n\n\nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. \n\nThis is predicated on an assumption that what I am proposing is censorship. Having a decent conversation with people of opposing views is certainly an improvement to being forced into an argument with them. Not having the ability to put distance between ourselves and other people tends to lend to the latter scenario. I believe this is a contributing factor to the increase in hostilities between groups over the internet.",
">\n\nI’m confused, can’t you just mute the subreddit you’d rather not see or hear from?",
">\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers?\nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like."
] |
>
No I just misunderstood the way you wanted to go about it.
I thought you meant to block users that were on undesirable subs.
I never go on popular so I avoid seeing stuff posted, but I could see where that feature would be useful.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?",
">\n\nIf your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem.",
">\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I also think that you’re making a lot of assumptions on the effects it would have on redditor behavior. \nWould people decide to leave controversial subs in order to have their opinions heard by more people on the controversial ones? I think most would choose the subs that they feel most emotionally connected to, and for many people belonging to a controversial or ‘besieged’ community provides that sense of connection. And if they really wanted to have a posts seen by everyone, they’d just make a milquetoast alt account. \nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. It’s a very conservative proposal, when you really think about it, putting freedom from being exposed to unpleasantness above freedom of expression.",
">\n\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment.\n\nCensorship has certain connotations though, and it is antithetical to what I'm proposing in my opinion because it is another way of limiting your choice in the matter. I've explained elsewhere that i consider this a necessary simulation of the natural barriers to speech which we need. If you're sick of the diatribe going on at a certain gathering, and you physically leave, putting distance between you so that nobody can communicate, are you censoring that group? Not exactly. \n\n\nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. \n\nThis is predicated on an assumption that what I am proposing is censorship. Having a decent conversation with people of opposing views is certainly an improvement to being forced into an argument with them. Not having the ability to put distance between ourselves and other people tends to lend to the latter scenario. I believe this is a contributing factor to the increase in hostilities between groups over the internet.",
">\n\nI’m confused, can’t you just mute the subreddit you’d rather not see or hear from?",
">\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers?\nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.",
">\n\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers? \nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\n\nAs fun as that could be to watch, I don't think that would be a problem. At least I would go about it so that you're not blocking users directly, just the subreddits, so there's far less than thousands of entities being blocked in a single operation. It would affect what content you see on per user basis though.\n\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\n\nI suppose that depends on how you look at it. Social media sites have some interaction between users, so reducing toxicity to improve the community could give reddit a bump in competitive edge once Elon's plotting comes to fruition -- we'll see. And it wouldn't hurt in avoiding the big threats to social media. All social media converging toward being the same conglomerate is not a boat I'd want to be in, but that's me.\n\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.\n\nAnd you should have every right. I'd just hope to minimize the consequences."
] |
>
RIF, the Reddit is Fun app has always done this.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?",
">\n\nIf your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem.",
">\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I also think that you’re making a lot of assumptions on the effects it would have on redditor behavior. \nWould people decide to leave controversial subs in order to have their opinions heard by more people on the controversial ones? I think most would choose the subs that they feel most emotionally connected to, and for many people belonging to a controversial or ‘besieged’ community provides that sense of connection. And if they really wanted to have a posts seen by everyone, they’d just make a milquetoast alt account. \nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. It’s a very conservative proposal, when you really think about it, putting freedom from being exposed to unpleasantness above freedom of expression.",
">\n\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment.\n\nCensorship has certain connotations though, and it is antithetical to what I'm proposing in my opinion because it is another way of limiting your choice in the matter. I've explained elsewhere that i consider this a necessary simulation of the natural barriers to speech which we need. If you're sick of the diatribe going on at a certain gathering, and you physically leave, putting distance between you so that nobody can communicate, are you censoring that group? Not exactly. \n\n\nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. \n\nThis is predicated on an assumption that what I am proposing is censorship. Having a decent conversation with people of opposing views is certainly an improvement to being forced into an argument with them. Not having the ability to put distance between ourselves and other people tends to lend to the latter scenario. I believe this is a contributing factor to the increase in hostilities between groups over the internet.",
">\n\nI’m confused, can’t you just mute the subreddit you’d rather not see or hear from?",
">\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers?\nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.",
">\n\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers? \nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\n\nAs fun as that could be to watch, I don't think that would be a problem. At least I would go about it so that you're not blocking users directly, just the subreddits, so there's far less than thousands of entities being blocked in a single operation. It would affect what content you see on per user basis though.\n\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\n\nI suppose that depends on how you look at it. Social media sites have some interaction between users, so reducing toxicity to improve the community could give reddit a bump in competitive edge once Elon's plotting comes to fruition -- we'll see. And it wouldn't hurt in avoiding the big threats to social media. All social media converging toward being the same conglomerate is not a boat I'd want to be in, but that's me.\n\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.\n\nAnd you should have every right. I'd just hope to minimize the consequences.",
">\n\nNo I just misunderstood the way you wanted to go about it.\nI thought you meant to block users that were on undesirable subs.\nI never go on popular so I avoid seeing stuff posted, but I could see where that feature would be useful."
] |
>
You already have that function in the 'mute subreddit' option available at the minimum to Android users (as that is what I'm using) by going to the community you don't wish to see, tapping the three dots at the top right and then selecting 'mute x' where x is the subreddit.
While this doesn't block individual users who post on those subreddits, if you never see the subreddits you find offensive, you will only very rarely see the posters you find offensive.
So your concern about the software challenge is already overcome.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?",
">\n\nIf your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem.",
">\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I also think that you’re making a lot of assumptions on the effects it would have on redditor behavior. \nWould people decide to leave controversial subs in order to have their opinions heard by more people on the controversial ones? I think most would choose the subs that they feel most emotionally connected to, and for many people belonging to a controversial or ‘besieged’ community provides that sense of connection. And if they really wanted to have a posts seen by everyone, they’d just make a milquetoast alt account. \nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. It’s a very conservative proposal, when you really think about it, putting freedom from being exposed to unpleasantness above freedom of expression.",
">\n\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment.\n\nCensorship has certain connotations though, and it is antithetical to what I'm proposing in my opinion because it is another way of limiting your choice in the matter. I've explained elsewhere that i consider this a necessary simulation of the natural barriers to speech which we need. If you're sick of the diatribe going on at a certain gathering, and you physically leave, putting distance between you so that nobody can communicate, are you censoring that group? Not exactly. \n\n\nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. \n\nThis is predicated on an assumption that what I am proposing is censorship. Having a decent conversation with people of opposing views is certainly an improvement to being forced into an argument with them. Not having the ability to put distance between ourselves and other people tends to lend to the latter scenario. I believe this is a contributing factor to the increase in hostilities between groups over the internet.",
">\n\nI’m confused, can’t you just mute the subreddit you’d rather not see or hear from?",
">\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers?\nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.",
">\n\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers? \nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\n\nAs fun as that could be to watch, I don't think that would be a problem. At least I would go about it so that you're not blocking users directly, just the subreddits, so there's far less than thousands of entities being blocked in a single operation. It would affect what content you see on per user basis though.\n\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\n\nI suppose that depends on how you look at it. Social media sites have some interaction between users, so reducing toxicity to improve the community could give reddit a bump in competitive edge once Elon's plotting comes to fruition -- we'll see. And it wouldn't hurt in avoiding the big threats to social media. All social media converging toward being the same conglomerate is not a boat I'd want to be in, but that's me.\n\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.\n\nAnd you should have every right. I'd just hope to minimize the consequences.",
">\n\nNo I just misunderstood the way you wanted to go about it.\nI thought you meant to block users that were on undesirable subs.\nI never go on popular so I avoid seeing stuff posted, but I could see where that feature would be useful.",
">\n\nRIF, the Reddit is Fun app has always done this."
] |
>
This doesn't address the redditors themselves, who in my experience do not quarantine themselves according to areas of genuine interest. Many apparently enjoy the drama they stir up.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?",
">\n\nIf your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem.",
">\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I also think that you’re making a lot of assumptions on the effects it would have on redditor behavior. \nWould people decide to leave controversial subs in order to have their opinions heard by more people on the controversial ones? I think most would choose the subs that they feel most emotionally connected to, and for many people belonging to a controversial or ‘besieged’ community provides that sense of connection. And if they really wanted to have a posts seen by everyone, they’d just make a milquetoast alt account. \nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. It’s a very conservative proposal, when you really think about it, putting freedom from being exposed to unpleasantness above freedom of expression.",
">\n\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment.\n\nCensorship has certain connotations though, and it is antithetical to what I'm proposing in my opinion because it is another way of limiting your choice in the matter. I've explained elsewhere that i consider this a necessary simulation of the natural barriers to speech which we need. If you're sick of the diatribe going on at a certain gathering, and you physically leave, putting distance between you so that nobody can communicate, are you censoring that group? Not exactly. \n\n\nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. \n\nThis is predicated on an assumption that what I am proposing is censorship. Having a decent conversation with people of opposing views is certainly an improvement to being forced into an argument with them. Not having the ability to put distance between ourselves and other people tends to lend to the latter scenario. I believe this is a contributing factor to the increase in hostilities between groups over the internet.",
">\n\nI’m confused, can’t you just mute the subreddit you’d rather not see or hear from?",
">\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers?\nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.",
">\n\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers? \nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\n\nAs fun as that could be to watch, I don't think that would be a problem. At least I would go about it so that you're not blocking users directly, just the subreddits, so there's far less than thousands of entities being blocked in a single operation. It would affect what content you see on per user basis though.\n\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\n\nI suppose that depends on how you look at it. Social media sites have some interaction between users, so reducing toxicity to improve the community could give reddit a bump in competitive edge once Elon's plotting comes to fruition -- we'll see. And it wouldn't hurt in avoiding the big threats to social media. All social media converging toward being the same conglomerate is not a boat I'd want to be in, but that's me.\n\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.\n\nAnd you should have every right. I'd just hope to minimize the consequences.",
">\n\nNo I just misunderstood the way you wanted to go about it.\nI thought you meant to block users that were on undesirable subs.\nI never go on popular so I avoid seeing stuff posted, but I could see where that feature would be useful.",
">\n\nRIF, the Reddit is Fun app has always done this.",
">\n\nYou already have that function in the 'mute subreddit' option available at the minimum to Android users (as that is what I'm using) by going to the community you don't wish to see, tapping the three dots at the top right and then selecting 'mute x' where x is the subreddit.\nWhile this doesn't block individual users who post on those subreddits, if you never see the subreddits you find offensive, you will only very rarely see the posters you find offensive.\nSo your concern about the software challenge is already overcome."
] |
>
So basically you’re only seeking information that supports your confirmation bias. That’s exactly how people become ignorant.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?",
">\n\nIf your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem.",
">\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I also think that you’re making a lot of assumptions on the effects it would have on redditor behavior. \nWould people decide to leave controversial subs in order to have their opinions heard by more people on the controversial ones? I think most would choose the subs that they feel most emotionally connected to, and for many people belonging to a controversial or ‘besieged’ community provides that sense of connection. And if they really wanted to have a posts seen by everyone, they’d just make a milquetoast alt account. \nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. It’s a very conservative proposal, when you really think about it, putting freedom from being exposed to unpleasantness above freedom of expression.",
">\n\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment.\n\nCensorship has certain connotations though, and it is antithetical to what I'm proposing in my opinion because it is another way of limiting your choice in the matter. I've explained elsewhere that i consider this a necessary simulation of the natural barriers to speech which we need. If you're sick of the diatribe going on at a certain gathering, and you physically leave, putting distance between you so that nobody can communicate, are you censoring that group? Not exactly. \n\n\nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. \n\nThis is predicated on an assumption that what I am proposing is censorship. Having a decent conversation with people of opposing views is certainly an improvement to being forced into an argument with them. Not having the ability to put distance between ourselves and other people tends to lend to the latter scenario. I believe this is a contributing factor to the increase in hostilities between groups over the internet.",
">\n\nI’m confused, can’t you just mute the subreddit you’d rather not see or hear from?",
">\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers?\nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.",
">\n\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers? \nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\n\nAs fun as that could be to watch, I don't think that would be a problem. At least I would go about it so that you're not blocking users directly, just the subreddits, so there's far less than thousands of entities being blocked in a single operation. It would affect what content you see on per user basis though.\n\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\n\nI suppose that depends on how you look at it. Social media sites have some interaction between users, so reducing toxicity to improve the community could give reddit a bump in competitive edge once Elon's plotting comes to fruition -- we'll see. And it wouldn't hurt in avoiding the big threats to social media. All social media converging toward being the same conglomerate is not a boat I'd want to be in, but that's me.\n\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.\n\nAnd you should have every right. I'd just hope to minimize the consequences.",
">\n\nNo I just misunderstood the way you wanted to go about it.\nI thought you meant to block users that were on undesirable subs.\nI never go on popular so I avoid seeing stuff posted, but I could see where that feature would be useful.",
">\n\nRIF, the Reddit is Fun app has always done this.",
">\n\nYou already have that function in the 'mute subreddit' option available at the minimum to Android users (as that is what I'm using) by going to the community you don't wish to see, tapping the three dots at the top right and then selecting 'mute x' where x is the subreddit.\nWhile this doesn't block individual users who post on those subreddits, if you never see the subreddits you find offensive, you will only very rarely see the posters you find offensive.\nSo your concern about the software challenge is already overcome.",
">\n\nThis doesn't address the redditors themselves, who in my experience do not quarantine themselves according to areas of genuine interest. Many apparently enjoy the drama they stir up."
] |
>
Every time I've posted in the r/FreeSpeech sub, I find my comments are met with far right clowns and ignorant rubes. Yet I am neither of these (although one might argue that I'm ignorant, admittedly, but I try to fix that whenever I can).
If you were inclined to stay away from fools like that, you would end up blocking my account by virtue of my association.
I supposed the question would be: do you consider that an acceptable trade-off? I'm just one account, sure, but there are others. What's the threshold for this sort of thing?
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?",
">\n\nIf your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem.",
">\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I also think that you’re making a lot of assumptions on the effects it would have on redditor behavior. \nWould people decide to leave controversial subs in order to have their opinions heard by more people on the controversial ones? I think most would choose the subs that they feel most emotionally connected to, and for many people belonging to a controversial or ‘besieged’ community provides that sense of connection. And if they really wanted to have a posts seen by everyone, they’d just make a milquetoast alt account. \nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. It’s a very conservative proposal, when you really think about it, putting freedom from being exposed to unpleasantness above freedom of expression.",
">\n\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment.\n\nCensorship has certain connotations though, and it is antithetical to what I'm proposing in my opinion because it is another way of limiting your choice in the matter. I've explained elsewhere that i consider this a necessary simulation of the natural barriers to speech which we need. If you're sick of the diatribe going on at a certain gathering, and you physically leave, putting distance between you so that nobody can communicate, are you censoring that group? Not exactly. \n\n\nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. \n\nThis is predicated on an assumption that what I am proposing is censorship. Having a decent conversation with people of opposing views is certainly an improvement to being forced into an argument with them. Not having the ability to put distance between ourselves and other people tends to lend to the latter scenario. I believe this is a contributing factor to the increase in hostilities between groups over the internet.",
">\n\nI’m confused, can’t you just mute the subreddit you’d rather not see or hear from?",
">\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers?\nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.",
">\n\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers? \nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\n\nAs fun as that could be to watch, I don't think that would be a problem. At least I would go about it so that you're not blocking users directly, just the subreddits, so there's far less than thousands of entities being blocked in a single operation. It would affect what content you see on per user basis though.\n\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\n\nI suppose that depends on how you look at it. Social media sites have some interaction between users, so reducing toxicity to improve the community could give reddit a bump in competitive edge once Elon's plotting comes to fruition -- we'll see. And it wouldn't hurt in avoiding the big threats to social media. All social media converging toward being the same conglomerate is not a boat I'd want to be in, but that's me.\n\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.\n\nAnd you should have every right. I'd just hope to minimize the consequences.",
">\n\nNo I just misunderstood the way you wanted to go about it.\nI thought you meant to block users that were on undesirable subs.\nI never go on popular so I avoid seeing stuff posted, but I could see where that feature would be useful.",
">\n\nRIF, the Reddit is Fun app has always done this.",
">\n\nYou already have that function in the 'mute subreddit' option available at the minimum to Android users (as that is what I'm using) by going to the community you don't wish to see, tapping the three dots at the top right and then selecting 'mute x' where x is the subreddit.\nWhile this doesn't block individual users who post on those subreddits, if you never see the subreddits you find offensive, you will only very rarely see the posters you find offensive.\nSo your concern about the software challenge is already overcome.",
">\n\nThis doesn't address the redditors themselves, who in my experience do not quarantine themselves according to areas of genuine interest. Many apparently enjoy the drama they stir up.",
">\n\nSo basically you’re only seeking information that supports your confirmation bias. That’s exactly how people become ignorant."
] |
>
I supposed the question would be: do you consider that an acceptable trade-off? I'm just one account, sure, but there are others. What's the threshold for this sort of thing?
Yeah, I think it's a tradeoff and I think it's worthwhile. We'd have to make adjustments on how we use reddit -- but at max a block in the sense that I'm proposing is reversible.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?",
">\n\nIf your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem.",
">\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I also think that you’re making a lot of assumptions on the effects it would have on redditor behavior. \nWould people decide to leave controversial subs in order to have their opinions heard by more people on the controversial ones? I think most would choose the subs that they feel most emotionally connected to, and for many people belonging to a controversial or ‘besieged’ community provides that sense of connection. And if they really wanted to have a posts seen by everyone, they’d just make a milquetoast alt account. \nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. It’s a very conservative proposal, when you really think about it, putting freedom from being exposed to unpleasantness above freedom of expression.",
">\n\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment.\n\nCensorship has certain connotations though, and it is antithetical to what I'm proposing in my opinion because it is another way of limiting your choice in the matter. I've explained elsewhere that i consider this a necessary simulation of the natural barriers to speech which we need. If you're sick of the diatribe going on at a certain gathering, and you physically leave, putting distance between you so that nobody can communicate, are you censoring that group? Not exactly. \n\n\nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. \n\nThis is predicated on an assumption that what I am proposing is censorship. Having a decent conversation with people of opposing views is certainly an improvement to being forced into an argument with them. Not having the ability to put distance between ourselves and other people tends to lend to the latter scenario. I believe this is a contributing factor to the increase in hostilities between groups over the internet.",
">\n\nI’m confused, can’t you just mute the subreddit you’d rather not see or hear from?",
">\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers?\nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.",
">\n\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers? \nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\n\nAs fun as that could be to watch, I don't think that would be a problem. At least I would go about it so that you're not blocking users directly, just the subreddits, so there's far less than thousands of entities being blocked in a single operation. It would affect what content you see on per user basis though.\n\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\n\nI suppose that depends on how you look at it. Social media sites have some interaction between users, so reducing toxicity to improve the community could give reddit a bump in competitive edge once Elon's plotting comes to fruition -- we'll see. And it wouldn't hurt in avoiding the big threats to social media. All social media converging toward being the same conglomerate is not a boat I'd want to be in, but that's me.\n\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.\n\nAnd you should have every right. I'd just hope to minimize the consequences.",
">\n\nNo I just misunderstood the way you wanted to go about it.\nI thought you meant to block users that were on undesirable subs.\nI never go on popular so I avoid seeing stuff posted, but I could see where that feature would be useful.",
">\n\nRIF, the Reddit is Fun app has always done this.",
">\n\nYou already have that function in the 'mute subreddit' option available at the minimum to Android users (as that is what I'm using) by going to the community you don't wish to see, tapping the three dots at the top right and then selecting 'mute x' where x is the subreddit.\nWhile this doesn't block individual users who post on those subreddits, if you never see the subreddits you find offensive, you will only very rarely see the posters you find offensive.\nSo your concern about the software challenge is already overcome.",
">\n\nThis doesn't address the redditors themselves, who in my experience do not quarantine themselves according to areas of genuine interest. Many apparently enjoy the drama they stir up.",
">\n\nSo basically you’re only seeking information that supports your confirmation bias. That’s exactly how people become ignorant.",
">\n\nEvery time I've posted in the r/FreeSpeech sub, I find my comments are met with far right clowns and ignorant rubes. Yet I am neither of these (although one might argue that I'm ignorant, admittedly, but I try to fix that whenever I can).\nIf you were inclined to stay away from fools like that, you would end up blocking my account by virtue of my association.\nI supposed the question would be: do you consider that an acceptable trade-off? I'm just one account, sure, but there are others. What's the threshold for this sort of thing?"
] |
>
Sorry, u/Cab000se – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?",
">\n\nIf your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem.",
">\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I also think that you’re making a lot of assumptions on the effects it would have on redditor behavior. \nWould people decide to leave controversial subs in order to have their opinions heard by more people on the controversial ones? I think most would choose the subs that they feel most emotionally connected to, and for many people belonging to a controversial or ‘besieged’ community provides that sense of connection. And if they really wanted to have a posts seen by everyone, they’d just make a milquetoast alt account. \nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. It’s a very conservative proposal, when you really think about it, putting freedom from being exposed to unpleasantness above freedom of expression.",
">\n\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment.\n\nCensorship has certain connotations though, and it is antithetical to what I'm proposing in my opinion because it is another way of limiting your choice in the matter. I've explained elsewhere that i consider this a necessary simulation of the natural barriers to speech which we need. If you're sick of the diatribe going on at a certain gathering, and you physically leave, putting distance between you so that nobody can communicate, are you censoring that group? Not exactly. \n\n\nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. \n\nThis is predicated on an assumption that what I am proposing is censorship. Having a decent conversation with people of opposing views is certainly an improvement to being forced into an argument with them. Not having the ability to put distance between ourselves and other people tends to lend to the latter scenario. I believe this is a contributing factor to the increase in hostilities between groups over the internet.",
">\n\nI’m confused, can’t you just mute the subreddit you’d rather not see or hear from?",
">\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers?\nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.",
">\n\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers? \nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\n\nAs fun as that could be to watch, I don't think that would be a problem. At least I would go about it so that you're not blocking users directly, just the subreddits, so there's far less than thousands of entities being blocked in a single operation. It would affect what content you see on per user basis though.\n\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\n\nI suppose that depends on how you look at it. Social media sites have some interaction between users, so reducing toxicity to improve the community could give reddit a bump in competitive edge once Elon's plotting comes to fruition -- we'll see. And it wouldn't hurt in avoiding the big threats to social media. All social media converging toward being the same conglomerate is not a boat I'd want to be in, but that's me.\n\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.\n\nAnd you should have every right. I'd just hope to minimize the consequences.",
">\n\nNo I just misunderstood the way you wanted to go about it.\nI thought you meant to block users that were on undesirable subs.\nI never go on popular so I avoid seeing stuff posted, but I could see where that feature would be useful.",
">\n\nRIF, the Reddit is Fun app has always done this.",
">\n\nYou already have that function in the 'mute subreddit' option available at the minimum to Android users (as that is what I'm using) by going to the community you don't wish to see, tapping the three dots at the top right and then selecting 'mute x' where x is the subreddit.\nWhile this doesn't block individual users who post on those subreddits, if you never see the subreddits you find offensive, you will only very rarely see the posters you find offensive.\nSo your concern about the software challenge is already overcome.",
">\n\nThis doesn't address the redditors themselves, who in my experience do not quarantine themselves according to areas of genuine interest. Many apparently enjoy the drama they stir up.",
">\n\nSo basically you’re only seeking information that supports your confirmation bias. That’s exactly how people become ignorant.",
">\n\nEvery time I've posted in the r/FreeSpeech sub, I find my comments are met with far right clowns and ignorant rubes. Yet I am neither of these (although one might argue that I'm ignorant, admittedly, but I try to fix that whenever I can).\nIf you were inclined to stay away from fools like that, you would end up blocking my account by virtue of my association.\nI supposed the question would be: do you consider that an acceptable trade-off? I'm just one account, sure, but there are others. What's the threshold for this sort of thing?",
">\n\n\nI supposed the question would be: do you consider that an acceptable trade-off? I'm just one account, sure, but there are others. What's the threshold for this sort of thing?\n\nYeah, I think it's a tradeoff and I think it's worthwhile. We'd have to make adjustments on how we use reddit -- but at max a block in the sense that I'm proposing is reversible."
] |
>
I can understand blocking subreddits but blocking all the users from that subreddit does not make sense.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?",
">\n\nIf your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem.",
">\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I also think that you’re making a lot of assumptions on the effects it would have on redditor behavior. \nWould people decide to leave controversial subs in order to have their opinions heard by more people on the controversial ones? I think most would choose the subs that they feel most emotionally connected to, and for many people belonging to a controversial or ‘besieged’ community provides that sense of connection. And if they really wanted to have a posts seen by everyone, they’d just make a milquetoast alt account. \nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. It’s a very conservative proposal, when you really think about it, putting freedom from being exposed to unpleasantness above freedom of expression.",
">\n\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment.\n\nCensorship has certain connotations though, and it is antithetical to what I'm proposing in my opinion because it is another way of limiting your choice in the matter. I've explained elsewhere that i consider this a necessary simulation of the natural barriers to speech which we need. If you're sick of the diatribe going on at a certain gathering, and you physically leave, putting distance between you so that nobody can communicate, are you censoring that group? Not exactly. \n\n\nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. \n\nThis is predicated on an assumption that what I am proposing is censorship. Having a decent conversation with people of opposing views is certainly an improvement to being forced into an argument with them. Not having the ability to put distance between ourselves and other people tends to lend to the latter scenario. I believe this is a contributing factor to the increase in hostilities between groups over the internet.",
">\n\nI’m confused, can’t you just mute the subreddit you’d rather not see or hear from?",
">\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers?\nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.",
">\n\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers? \nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\n\nAs fun as that could be to watch, I don't think that would be a problem. At least I would go about it so that you're not blocking users directly, just the subreddits, so there's far less than thousands of entities being blocked in a single operation. It would affect what content you see on per user basis though.\n\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\n\nI suppose that depends on how you look at it. Social media sites have some interaction between users, so reducing toxicity to improve the community could give reddit a bump in competitive edge once Elon's plotting comes to fruition -- we'll see. And it wouldn't hurt in avoiding the big threats to social media. All social media converging toward being the same conglomerate is not a boat I'd want to be in, but that's me.\n\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.\n\nAnd you should have every right. I'd just hope to minimize the consequences.",
">\n\nNo I just misunderstood the way you wanted to go about it.\nI thought you meant to block users that were on undesirable subs.\nI never go on popular so I avoid seeing stuff posted, but I could see where that feature would be useful.",
">\n\nRIF, the Reddit is Fun app has always done this.",
">\n\nYou already have that function in the 'mute subreddit' option available at the minimum to Android users (as that is what I'm using) by going to the community you don't wish to see, tapping the three dots at the top right and then selecting 'mute x' where x is the subreddit.\nWhile this doesn't block individual users who post on those subreddits, if you never see the subreddits you find offensive, you will only very rarely see the posters you find offensive.\nSo your concern about the software challenge is already overcome.",
">\n\nThis doesn't address the redditors themselves, who in my experience do not quarantine themselves according to areas of genuine interest. Many apparently enjoy the drama they stir up.",
">\n\nSo basically you’re only seeking information that supports your confirmation bias. That’s exactly how people become ignorant.",
">\n\nEvery time I've posted in the r/FreeSpeech sub, I find my comments are met with far right clowns and ignorant rubes. Yet I am neither of these (although one might argue that I'm ignorant, admittedly, but I try to fix that whenever I can).\nIf you were inclined to stay away from fools like that, you would end up blocking my account by virtue of my association.\nI supposed the question would be: do you consider that an acceptable trade-off? I'm just one account, sure, but there are others. What's the threshold for this sort of thing?",
">\n\n\nI supposed the question would be: do you consider that an acceptable trade-off? I'm just one account, sure, but there are others. What's the threshold for this sort of thing?\n\nYeah, I think it's a tradeoff and I think it's worthwhile. We'd have to make adjustments on how we use reddit -- but at max a block in the sense that I'm proposing is reversible.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Cab000se – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards."
] |
>
I havent blocked a single person and never will so i cant relate. I dont care that someone makes the dumbest comment on reddit, chances are im not gonna see him again and if i do i wont notice so blocking them or not feels the exact same to me, except thst blocking them is more work so i dont.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?",
">\n\nIf your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem.",
">\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I also think that you’re making a lot of assumptions on the effects it would have on redditor behavior. \nWould people decide to leave controversial subs in order to have their opinions heard by more people on the controversial ones? I think most would choose the subs that they feel most emotionally connected to, and for many people belonging to a controversial or ‘besieged’ community provides that sense of connection. And if they really wanted to have a posts seen by everyone, they’d just make a milquetoast alt account. \nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. It’s a very conservative proposal, when you really think about it, putting freedom from being exposed to unpleasantness above freedom of expression.",
">\n\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment.\n\nCensorship has certain connotations though, and it is antithetical to what I'm proposing in my opinion because it is another way of limiting your choice in the matter. I've explained elsewhere that i consider this a necessary simulation of the natural barriers to speech which we need. If you're sick of the diatribe going on at a certain gathering, and you physically leave, putting distance between you so that nobody can communicate, are you censoring that group? Not exactly. \n\n\nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. \n\nThis is predicated on an assumption that what I am proposing is censorship. Having a decent conversation with people of opposing views is certainly an improvement to being forced into an argument with them. Not having the ability to put distance between ourselves and other people tends to lend to the latter scenario. I believe this is a contributing factor to the increase in hostilities between groups over the internet.",
">\n\nI’m confused, can’t you just mute the subreddit you’d rather not see or hear from?",
">\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers?\nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.",
">\n\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers? \nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\n\nAs fun as that could be to watch, I don't think that would be a problem. At least I would go about it so that you're not blocking users directly, just the subreddits, so there's far less than thousands of entities being blocked in a single operation. It would affect what content you see on per user basis though.\n\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\n\nI suppose that depends on how you look at it. Social media sites have some interaction between users, so reducing toxicity to improve the community could give reddit a bump in competitive edge once Elon's plotting comes to fruition -- we'll see. And it wouldn't hurt in avoiding the big threats to social media. All social media converging toward being the same conglomerate is not a boat I'd want to be in, but that's me.\n\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.\n\nAnd you should have every right. I'd just hope to minimize the consequences.",
">\n\nNo I just misunderstood the way you wanted to go about it.\nI thought you meant to block users that were on undesirable subs.\nI never go on popular so I avoid seeing stuff posted, but I could see where that feature would be useful.",
">\n\nRIF, the Reddit is Fun app has always done this.",
">\n\nYou already have that function in the 'mute subreddit' option available at the minimum to Android users (as that is what I'm using) by going to the community you don't wish to see, tapping the three dots at the top right and then selecting 'mute x' where x is the subreddit.\nWhile this doesn't block individual users who post on those subreddits, if you never see the subreddits you find offensive, you will only very rarely see the posters you find offensive.\nSo your concern about the software challenge is already overcome.",
">\n\nThis doesn't address the redditors themselves, who in my experience do not quarantine themselves according to areas of genuine interest. Many apparently enjoy the drama they stir up.",
">\n\nSo basically you’re only seeking information that supports your confirmation bias. That’s exactly how people become ignorant.",
">\n\nEvery time I've posted in the r/FreeSpeech sub, I find my comments are met with far right clowns and ignorant rubes. Yet I am neither of these (although one might argue that I'm ignorant, admittedly, but I try to fix that whenever I can).\nIf you were inclined to stay away from fools like that, you would end up blocking my account by virtue of my association.\nI supposed the question would be: do you consider that an acceptable trade-off? I'm just one account, sure, but there are others. What's the threshold for this sort of thing?",
">\n\n\nI supposed the question would be: do you consider that an acceptable trade-off? I'm just one account, sure, but there are others. What's the threshold for this sort of thing?\n\nYeah, I think it's a tradeoff and I think it's worthwhile. We'd have to make adjustments on how we use reddit -- but at max a block in the sense that I'm proposing is reversible.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Cab000se – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nI can understand blocking subreddits but blocking all the users from that subreddit does not make sense."
] |
>
Con you missed: not everybody subscribed to a subreddit is necessarily part of the community. They might be there for research purposes, out of curiosity, to understand more about the people and dynamics in the community etc.
Sure, that won’t be the majority of subscribers. But blocking just by subscription would be a very blunt instrument.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?",
">\n\nIf your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem.",
">\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I also think that you’re making a lot of assumptions on the effects it would have on redditor behavior. \nWould people decide to leave controversial subs in order to have their opinions heard by more people on the controversial ones? I think most would choose the subs that they feel most emotionally connected to, and for many people belonging to a controversial or ‘besieged’ community provides that sense of connection. And if they really wanted to have a posts seen by everyone, they’d just make a milquetoast alt account. \nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. It’s a very conservative proposal, when you really think about it, putting freedom from being exposed to unpleasantness above freedom of expression.",
">\n\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment.\n\nCensorship has certain connotations though, and it is antithetical to what I'm proposing in my opinion because it is another way of limiting your choice in the matter. I've explained elsewhere that i consider this a necessary simulation of the natural barriers to speech which we need. If you're sick of the diatribe going on at a certain gathering, and you physically leave, putting distance between you so that nobody can communicate, are you censoring that group? Not exactly. \n\n\nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. \n\nThis is predicated on an assumption that what I am proposing is censorship. Having a decent conversation with people of opposing views is certainly an improvement to being forced into an argument with them. Not having the ability to put distance between ourselves and other people tends to lend to the latter scenario. I believe this is a contributing factor to the increase in hostilities between groups over the internet.",
">\n\nI’m confused, can’t you just mute the subreddit you’d rather not see or hear from?",
">\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers?\nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.",
">\n\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers? \nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\n\nAs fun as that could be to watch, I don't think that would be a problem. At least I would go about it so that you're not blocking users directly, just the subreddits, so there's far less than thousands of entities being blocked in a single operation. It would affect what content you see on per user basis though.\n\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\n\nI suppose that depends on how you look at it. Social media sites have some interaction between users, so reducing toxicity to improve the community could give reddit a bump in competitive edge once Elon's plotting comes to fruition -- we'll see. And it wouldn't hurt in avoiding the big threats to social media. All social media converging toward being the same conglomerate is not a boat I'd want to be in, but that's me.\n\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.\n\nAnd you should have every right. I'd just hope to minimize the consequences.",
">\n\nNo I just misunderstood the way you wanted to go about it.\nI thought you meant to block users that were on undesirable subs.\nI never go on popular so I avoid seeing stuff posted, but I could see where that feature would be useful.",
">\n\nRIF, the Reddit is Fun app has always done this.",
">\n\nYou already have that function in the 'mute subreddit' option available at the minimum to Android users (as that is what I'm using) by going to the community you don't wish to see, tapping the three dots at the top right and then selecting 'mute x' where x is the subreddit.\nWhile this doesn't block individual users who post on those subreddits, if you never see the subreddits you find offensive, you will only very rarely see the posters you find offensive.\nSo your concern about the software challenge is already overcome.",
">\n\nThis doesn't address the redditors themselves, who in my experience do not quarantine themselves according to areas of genuine interest. Many apparently enjoy the drama they stir up.",
">\n\nSo basically you’re only seeking information that supports your confirmation bias. That’s exactly how people become ignorant.",
">\n\nEvery time I've posted in the r/FreeSpeech sub, I find my comments are met with far right clowns and ignorant rubes. Yet I am neither of these (although one might argue that I'm ignorant, admittedly, but I try to fix that whenever I can).\nIf you were inclined to stay away from fools like that, you would end up blocking my account by virtue of my association.\nI supposed the question would be: do you consider that an acceptable trade-off? I'm just one account, sure, but there are others. What's the threshold for this sort of thing?",
">\n\n\nI supposed the question would be: do you consider that an acceptable trade-off? I'm just one account, sure, but there are others. What's the threshold for this sort of thing?\n\nYeah, I think it's a tradeoff and I think it's worthwhile. We'd have to make adjustments on how we use reddit -- but at max a block in the sense that I'm proposing is reversible.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Cab000se – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nI can understand blocking subreddits but blocking all the users from that subreddit does not make sense.",
">\n\nI havent blocked a single person and never will so i cant relate. I dont care that someone makes the dumbest comment on reddit, chances are im not gonna see him again and if i do i wont notice so blocking them or not feels the exact same to me, except thst blocking them is more work so i dont."
] |
>
I try to filter every sports genre. I don't want to see any of it. I don't care about it even a little. I want the ability to filter all sports out.
|
[
"/u/AConcernedCoder (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI think this would degrade the quality of interactions and content on Reddit massively. A subreddit like r/ChangeMyView probably wouldn’t survive in any meaningful way in a landscape where large proportions of users don’t interact with each other based on their ideologies. If each Reddit user in a controversial or discourse-based sub has like 10% of other users blocked, they would miss out on SO many comment chains to the point where everyone would be seeing a different version of each thread.",
">\n\nAs I've clarified elsewhere, the point is not to enable discrimination against users for their opinions, which would be impossible anyways, but to limit toxicity.\nFor a subreddit such as CMV, granted, this would be impactful. You may want conservatives here but do conservatives really want accounts that actively promote anti-semitism or other extremes associated with the right to represent their views? I wouldn't expect so. So whether it would be a net positive or negative is debatable.\nThe point isn't to target ideologies, but toxicity and subreddit membership is the leverage against that. As outlined, anyone can escape a block by disassociating from the subreddits that are especially known for the toxic content. And that's good -- again, it's not intended to target persons or ideologies, but toxicity, by incentivizing its limitation.",
">\n\nThe point of such a system may not be to discriminate based on opinions, but that would be the outcome of the system. Just because a system is intended to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be used to do something else, and that is what people need to always look out for when proposing systems like this \nIt will just creat bigger echo chambers and more misinformation as pointed out by sirhc978. \nYou keep on saying that it’s not really a block because the user can just unsubscribe to the sub that you block, but this is a terrible argument on two counts. 1. Is that most (non-troll) people would really want to drop a sub just so they can post something on someone’s post, 2. Is that unless you have some sort of timeout system to stop a person from just dropping the sub and then resubbing (which would just exacerbate point 1) trolls and toxic posters can do just that. \nOverall the most likely outcome of the system is that people using will likely decrease the number of “toxic” reply’s and comments, but it will drastically decrease good and important criticisms of points made as those are by people who look at many different views. It will also drastically increase the amount of misinformation that people can spread as they block those criticisms and corrections that people make",
">\n\nI don’t think people that subscribe to the most toxic subs have good points about anything honestly.",
">\n\nI can get behind the idea of blocking a particular subreddit from showing up on my feed, but not blocking everyone who takes part in that sub. Especially since a lot of people \"hate follow\" certain subs. \nThe blocking system can already be used very effectively to spread misinformation. Putting it on steroids could potentially be a bad thing.\nIf you REALLY want to, could could just install the RES extension.",
">\n\nIs the point here that when blocked, one cannot counter the spread of misinformation?",
">\n\nThe point here is that you can use the blocking system to easily spread misinformation. You can basically create an echo-chamber inside an echo-chamber.",
">\n\n“An echo chamber inside an echo chamber”\nPretty sure that’s OP’s wet dream right there. According to this post and his responses, his mental health is fragile and can’t tolerate nuance.",
">\n\nI subscribe to a number of communities that I have serious disagreements with. (1) I want to keep informed about trending topics within those communities and (2) I want to continually challenge my own perspectives on issues which in effect makes me much more nuanced in my discussions and arguably more formidable in debate.\nIf a particular user is bothering me and being just generally rude, I simply wish them a nice day, block them, and move on to more meaningful discussions.",
">\n\nOk but consider this perspective. I am trans, therefore I receive fairly frequent targeted harassment on reddit. I frequently get hateful dms from random people, people who enter trans subreddits to find random trans people to bully. If you look at the accounts that do this, you will find common links in anti-trans and conservative subreddits that they subscribe to. If I could block all people who subscribe to such subreddits, my life would be made significantly more positive. Sure, I may be blocking people that don't do targeted harassment of minority groups, but uh, I think that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make if it means I get less death threats at the cost of no longer talking to people who think I shouldn't have rights or exist.",
">\n\nI'm sorry you have to put up with that. If you're getting targeted threats and similar speech you should definitely report that to the Reddit admins and get those people kicked off of Reddit permanently. Perhaps look at it as a service you're doing to the entire Reddit. If you simply did a mass block, these people would still persist on this platform, potentially doing emotional harm (or worse) to others.",
">\n\n\nAre there any?\n\nI know this is something that doesn't even register for a lot of people, but I would wager that a healthy amount of people on various subreddits are there to offer different perspectives and engage in good faith disagreements. You know, like, the way a democracy should be?\nThis post is a troubling illustration of the mindset of someone who is only interested in echo chambers. Ironic considering the subreddit we're on.",
">\n\nFrom the technical point of view it's probably not the most complicated task. May be a bit time consuming. But we're not splitting the atom. \nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked. \nOn top of that it would likely generate a ton of negative attention. Which honestly reddit is probably used to by now.",
">\n\n\nThe real challenge would likely be the amount of support requests it generated. People blocking people unintentionally. People complaining about getting blocked.\n\nGood point. I've not run a social site like reddit so I honestly don't know how bad the support requests are nor the best methods for mitigating the workflow.\nJust an idea: some popular subreddits could be cleared as unblockable because their focus is deliberately not controversial. Maybe their rules would have to conform to a standard to achieve that status. On subscribing to a subreddit which is not unblockable you get a warning message saying this is a controversial sub and you could be blocked by other redditors for participating.\nI'll give you a !delta for bringing up a good point that I don't know how to solve.",
">\n\nHow do you determine which subreddits are “controversial”?",
">\n\nWhat's controversial to you may not be controversial to me, and vice versa, but some subs disallow politics, religion, etc. I think it's possible to arrive at some standard for a non-controversial sub. I'm not saying I have defined the standard.",
">\n\nI’d say it’s impossible to have any specific person or group define what’s “controversial” while maintaining an open platform where people can express themselves without censorship. Sure some things are illegal or outright dangerous, but when it comes to politics, religion, and things of a similar nature people are always going to have different perspectives and you just have to accept that. It’s the way the world works. You do not exist in an echo chamber, and I believe it is dangerous to try to create an environment like that on the internet",
">\n\nWould you agree that people should be able to visit a public site and not have to fear for being harassed, stalked or to receive death threats from people who have your adddress?\nIsn't there some baseline of acceptable behavior which should be a bare minimum for a site's users? If yes, I think it's possible to come up with a baseline needed clear a sub as exempt from this rule.",
">\n\nI think you should practice basic internet safety and this won’t be an issue… don’t post your address online, don’t participate in subs where you’re likely to be harassed, block and report people as needed. I don’t see how blocking an entire category of people is going to prevent you from being stalked, stalkers don’t really belong to any specific group of people it’s definitely more of an isolated incident of a creepy/obsessive person that needs to be handled appropriately",
">\n\nPros: \n\nthe sorts of people who want this aren't the sorts of people you want to associate with, so if they block you because they don't like a subreddit you're on, it's probably better for your mental health.\n\ncons:\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net",
">\n\n\nencourages echo chambers\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. Echo chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. This idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nit removes ways to learn you are wrong or deepen your understanding of your own beliefs\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nmay catch people who go to these subreddits to debate/try to help those people in your net\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. Note that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\nThen, if you really felt the need, you could always make another account. One for enjoying reddit, and one for outreach or keeping tabs on the enemy or whatever it is you do. The block is still beneficial in that case because you have that ability to get away. So long as users can enjoy themselves on Reddit and not get pulled into the inflammatory culture wars etc, I believe it would reduce overall toxicity.",
">\n\n\nEcho chambers are formed by their members, they don't need help. \n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\nEcho chambers are bad because they breed toxicity. \n\nNo. Echo chambers are bad because they promote a lack of rational discussion in favor of a beatdown of people who insist they know better than you (they might, but they might not)\n\nThis idea would penalize echo chambers by giving users pushback against the consequences they create, while also incentivizing reform.\n\nNo. This idea creates echo chambers by making it even easier to not encounter ideas that oppose them in neutral subreddits.\n\nThis doesn't happen with toxic people. You can't learn from them if you can barely communicate with them.\n\nYou'd be surprised. Most 'toxic' people are responding to perceived slights against them. When you can find common ground and show them that you hear and understand their position, there remains very few toxic people.\n\nI've thought about this and it may be a benefit. On the one hand, yes this would disincentivize a user's freedom to associate with a community they strongly oppose. On the other hand, this also may have the effect of limiting drama, and more toxicity -- the less heated arguments, the less reason there is to post toxic, inflammatory content, etc. \n\nQuestion: is 4chan a toxic place? Because most people there broadly agree with one another. So if 4chan is toxic, how can that be if exposure to heated arguments is the source?\nIt seems like your solution to toxicity is to ostracize anti-social people from society. Studies have demonstrated time and time again that this is the worst possible thing you can do for them. Because even a moderately anti-social person will be radicalized to become completely anti-social if the only people they can interact with are other anti-social people. See also: prison.\n\nNote that I'm not saying it's not good to communicate or debate -- people who debate willfully in communities like CMV are both better at it and better prepared for it, but we can't expect that of scenarios that lean toward harassment. People have to be able to get away if and when they want to to avoid undesireable consequences of argumentation.\n\nWe already have tools for dealing with harassment: blocking individual users and reporting to admins. Why do we need to block entire swaths of people just because they might harass you?",
">\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nAnd the ability to block entire subreddits of people who disagree with you will make it easier to form echo chambers. Therefore we don't need the ability to block entire subreddits.\n\n4chan exists. QAnon followers exist. I can't stop that from happening and I'm definitely not advocating that anyone has the right to beat them up or whatever just for being wrong. But to say I'm not within my rights to exclude 4chan from my life, you're saying society should be 4chan. Shy of staying indoors all day we should all be listening to the QAnon movement drone on and on about their insanity. That's absurd.\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\nI've clarified elsewhere that with modern communications we made a spectacular miscalculation on the constitutional, natural and necessary limits to speech.\nSimulating those limitations in social media before social insanity destroys us, before the gov't cracks down too harshly on freedom of speech, or before we have to pull the plug on the internet is a reasonable compromise.",
">\n\n\nI'm glad you brought up 4chan because that's a perfect example. I'm not a user of it because it's too toxic for myself. It adds zero value to my life, and I should be within my rights to avoid that content.\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nWe have hordes of crazy people who cannot be reasoned with and they're multiplying on the internet. They're even causing massive social destabilization. Have we made a miscalculation? Don't be ridiculous, freedom is only good and there are no consequences. So let's give them a microphone and they'll somehow be healed of their lunacy. This is absurd.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.",
">\n\n\nSure. But there's a difference between avoiding 4chan and actively blocking out everyone who visits it. You're asking for the second while arguing that you're only doing the first. This is a classic motte and bailey argument.\n\nMaybe there is some confusion, because I'm not proposing the ability to absolutely block and ostricize anyone. In my mind it equates to avoidance of certain kinds of content that tend to be promoted by users who also happen to self-organize by subreddits. Any of those users can walk right out from under that, consequence free. If the intent is to absolutely block any accounts or exclude them from anything, that's what regular blocks and bans are for. My idea emulates what I would be doing in relation to 4chan, which I avoid -- because we all need to be able to exercise that selective preference as we do in the real world.\n\nThis isn't what I'm saying. I'm only saying that we don't need to make it easier to ostracize people from society. If someone is harassing you or you don't like what they're saying, by all means block them. But there is a massive difference between blocking someone after they've interacted with you and demonstrated some negative qualities vs blocking anyone who interacts with an entire forum.\n\nIt's my response to the general argument made ad nauseum that to act on your selective preferences as we have to everywhere else, is to support or create echo chambers. It's a weak argument and it remains so.\nAnd it's apparently local to social media since it doesn't work anywhere else. Well in that case what makes social media so important that we must be subjected to unwelcome content to avoid creating echo chambers, unlike the real world?",
">\n\nI think if you find yourself on a social forum wanting to hide from entire blocks of people, maybe you should step away from the social forum.",
">\n\nThe internet needs to be more of an echo chamber. Sounds awesome, OP.",
">\n\nWhile there are always going to be exceptions, the best interaction is one in which a person learns something, sees something from a new perspective, or gains more context. and / or, forces you to refine your view relative to a new rebuttal. to accomplish any of this, you need, at the very least, distinct ideas, and at the most, outright contradictions. your model would, except for those specifically looking to challenge their established beliefs, create bigger / faster / stronger echo-chambers.",
">\n\nHow often is that happening on Reddit, versus how often do people get into useless arguments where both sides dig in their heels?",
">\n\nWell... three things come to mind.\n\nin some sense, what we want to happen is happening right now. OP has a POV, i challenged it, and now you're asking me to reconsider, or perhaps, refine, my own. We aren't being toxic, we're each considering our perspectives. your challenge forces me to, in a sense, argue w/ myself, in order to defend it. this arguing w/ myself forces me challenge my assumptions and biases. this is a good thing.\nlet's say you're right... it seems an odd prescription to say, \"behavior x is bad for me, and b/c its bad for me i'm experiencing these problems, and b/c i'm experiencing these problems i shouldn't stop behavior x.\"\nnow let's say you're mostly right, but what i'm describing is the minority of interactions on reddit. let's say the vast minority. i have no idea how many interactions there are on reddit / day, but let's stipulate there is not less a million. let's say 99% of those are as you described. two people dig their heels in. that means there are at least 10,000 genuine opportunities for people to improve / change / learn. let's extrapolate even more. i have no idea how many people see those genuine interactions, but we know its at least 5,000, as it must be at least two people. let's say that's 50%. then, let's assume that some portion of the 10,000 interactions are seen by more than 2 people, b/c, as happens a lot on this sub, the conversation is followed by many more. let's be conservative and say of the remaining 50%, half again are seen by at least 5 others, and the last half is seen by at least 10 others. if my math is right, that means that \\~40k people / day, learned at least a little bit.\nif you disagree and think 99% is to generous, that Reddit is actually 99.9% toxic, that's still \\~4,000 genuine \"perspective\" changes / day. relative to the total amount of toxicity, i agree that's low. and perhaps it means perspective change on the internet doesn't scale well, but that's a different argument. as an absolute number, that's a lot.\nand on top of that, we can probably agree the 1,000,000 interactions / day is at least a few orders of magnitude conservative. if there were 10M, and Reddit is 99.9% toxic, we're back at \\~40k. if there are a 100M, we're at \\~400k.",
">\n\nThis might sound harsh, but if posts with differing view points bother you so much, it doesn’t seem like Reddit is the place for you. Part of the reason I enjoy Reddit is the melting pot of people who are engaging with posts across all subreddits. If you start blocking everyone you disagree with, you create tons of echo chambers with no dissenting opinion for folks to balance and learn from. \nAs a wise man once said “…don’t let random internet strangers dictate your feelings”\nIf you can’t exist without a bubble of like-minded peers, create a few different “multis” of your own preferred subs, and you can scroll on your custom home page and only see posts from the subreddits you have selected. \nTLDR: worry about yourself",
">\n\nStraw man. People are infuriated. We almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber? This shit is insane",
">\n\n\nWe almost had an attempted coup, or, if you disagree, are you living in some kind of echo chamber?\n\n“Do you agree with me, or are you wrong?”",
">\n\nYou're doing it too lol... you're saying they're wrong for refusing opposing views... by refusing their view.",
">\n\nHe’s having the conversation though. OP doesn’t want to hear it.",
">\n\nNot at all... the conversation is about why an \"echo chamber\" (quotes because echo chamber is a spectrum, not objective) is bad.\nThey're just saying \"it is bad, you're wrong\".",
">\n\nBut actively choosing to be opposed in opinion, unlike OP.",
">\n\nI'm not following what you mean by that.",
">\n\nOP’s whole position is that they know the truth so well that it’s not worth even hearing about other perspectives.",
">\n\nI think users blocking each other in mass is not good for the site. For example it would definitely fuck up this sub reddit which is my favorite \nThere are already niche communities to be surrounded by the opinions you want to hear. So just use those if you want. In general, I think it is better for subs (and real life) to have more open discourse and varying opinions",
">\n\nNot everyone who participates in a subreddit is representative of it's common viewpoints or even friendly to that community at all. Reddit sometimes recommends you posts from places you've never shown explicit interest in, and people sometimes leave comments on these posts telling people how stupid the content is or getting into small debates. Lumping them in with a subreddit wide ban would be unfair.\nIf you limit only to the subscribed subreddits, you'd then get people unsubbing from the more controversial ones, but still viewing them through custom feeds. So it would be ineffective.",
">\n\nIf you don’t want to see opposing opinions, you probably shouldn’t be on Reddit in the first place. I mean if it hurts your mental state to see me talk because I am a fiscal conservative and pro-life, even if what I have to say is polite, the problem isn’t on Reddit or me.\nAnd we don’t need more echo chambers in this world, we need fewer.",
">\n\nI don't think it's about opposing opinions, it's more about toxic opinions.",
">\n\nToxic opinions to some aren't toxic to others. For example I'm pro choice and think that being pro life is completely toxic, however, a good portion of the population thinks my views are toxic. Who's to say who's really right and gets to express their opinions?",
">\n\nYes, exactly, but no one is asking to ban ideologies or arguments or people, we are talking about giving the option to someone for blocking certain things or people with certain ideologies. I am pro choice, I believe pro life people can say whatever the hell they want, but I personally don't have any interest in hearing it, and giving the option to mute them and block their existence, I will, because I really don't care about their toxic rethoric.\nNo one is talking about restricting the people's right to express an opinion, it's about the possibility of choosing restricting the opinions you recieve.",
">\n\nOp was talking about limiting the 1st amendment so he was talking about restricting peoples right to express an opinion",
">\n\nHahahaha you realise there is a world outside of your little 14% of the population. Right?",
">\n\nYea they definitely should I get SICK of Anti work and America Bad subreddits it's an echo chamber of lies and incels.",
">\n\nI'm banned from like 50 different subreddits beacuse I'm on r/mensrights. I don't realy use it but I do advocate for gender equality. I want to also be in r/feminist but I'm banned from it. 🙁",
">\n\nMy idea differs because the choice is yours rather than strictly subject to moderation.",
">\n\nI feel like ot would just be annoying more then anything. Like imagine accidently blocking someone and you don't even know wbout it. Maybe it could but a red circle around there posts just to tell you in advance \"hey this guy is on a subreddit you don't like\" that would probs be easier",
">\n\nA lot of the people who are more reasonable and level headed follow subs that don’t align with their thinking, in order to hear things from a perspective that they would otherwise not be exposed to. You would be alienating yourself from quality redditors as well as putting yourself into an echo chamber of your own making. You could do it, but it’s not a good thing",
">\n\nI think that is favorable to being forced to hear others' perspectives. Whether you're here to hear those opinions or to browse cat pictures to the exclusion of inflammatory content, this idea is intended to give the user more power of choice in the matter.\nIf we assume freedom of speech equates to unlimited effect of speech, or the right to scream one's opinions at anyone at all, willing or not, we're overstepping other rights that should be respected. Freedom of association, a right to privacy and I'd take that further with a right to exist peacefully without being involuntarily molested, are important.\nAnd you can always create a different account. The point is to limit the effect of especially toxic content, and the redditors who post it having more rights than the redditors who want to avoid it.",
">\n\nThe root of the problem... Give me a break. We have people here saying you should absolutely be forced to listen to nazi rhetoric.\nYou're delusional if that's what you think.",
">\n\nGodwin’s law says you are too far gone for anyone to change your mind",
">\n\nYou can't even use reason to attempt to change my mind",
">\n\nBecause your arguments isn’t based on reason, just zealotism",
">\n\nCan you qualify that argument or are you just venting your frustrations?",
">\n\nSure, despite overwhelming consensus that what you are advocating for is simply an echo chamber you delude yourself saying it isn’t, you qualify everything you say should be bloque to nazism, and finally despite yourself writing that you don’t want to hear anyone else perspective you come to a subreddit explicitly made for that expecting to be applauded and got angry when people call you delusional and poke holes in your bad idea",
">\n\nI gave deltas to the points that were compelling. Other than that there are no holes poked.\nI'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me or all other viewpoints are comparable to nazism in any way. This echo chamber argument which has failed and wlll continue to fail to convince me until someone applies some cogent reasoning to change my view, was addressed. My argument against the assumption that it is an indisputable good to hear other perspectives, is a contradiction -- under a totalitarian regime it is not necessarily a good thing to be subjected to party doctrine. Hitler did rise to power through speech. It's relevant because speech is a means through which ideology and propaganda like blood libel spreads.\nSomeone else raised in discussion that we absolutely should be subjected to nazi rhetoric. This has nothing to do with painting other opinions as nazi rhetoric in this thread. It has everything to do with challenging the dogmatic assertion that you not only should but must hear others' viewpoints. Debate is one thing -- we're here voluntarily, but being forced to listen to nazi rhetoric is something else, and nobody has established a convincing reason as to why.\nExcept, you think consensus counts. What does consensus tell me, exactly? Reason it out with me.",
">\n\nWouldn't work on those who don't subscribe to any subreddit, like me.",
">\n\nThat's ok, actually. The point isn't to enable anyone to discriminate against people of opposing views so much as to limit the toxicity -- even if you hate a certain group, a happy member of that group is less toxic than one who is always angry because of the drama. In theory, it's by participating in subcommunities that spread the hate, the anger, the misinformation, etc that people become more toxic.",
">\n\nThe end result is the same. You're blocking people not for what they say, but for what they want to know about. You are discriminating against a group of people, you're just calling it toxic as a way to justify your own internal belief system.",
">\n\nI think nazi Germany had to go insane before doing insane things. I think America is going insane, and I think social media is a facilitator of this. Facebook faced lawsuits because of its role in Myanmar where genocide has occurrred. It's a well-known fact that public lynchings are carried out after being coordinated over social media.\nI'm opinionated on the subject, for a reason. If you don't like it, that's ok but it would be less toxic of you to tone down the accusatory tone. I'm critical not of free speech but of fallacious understandings of it and its benefits.",
">\n\nMy post is neither accusatory or toxic and that is kind of the point here. It would be toxic if I called you names or equated you to the Gestapo or browncoats.",
">\n\nYou accused me of discriminating against a group of people and that I only call it \"toxic\" because it justifies my internal belief system.\nYou also ignored all points I made in support of my position.\nThis is textbook toxic behavior. You're not here to debate. Your only purpose is to spread toxicity among other users.",
">\n\nSee here is where you're wrong. I stand by my statement that you are discriminating against a group of people because of the association and not on their actions and it not toxic to say that. \nI didn't respond to the rest of your points because I don't disagree with the idea that social media has created a new town square where people can spread bullshit. Whether it is organizing a lynching which is not very common, to enabling terrorists, but it also enables union and labor organizing, it also enables grass roots awareness, and can be used for good. \nFor example, I follow work reform and antiwork becuase I believe there are merits to reforming the job market. I also think their position on capitalism and landlords is idiotic and calling for the death of landlords or ceos is the perfect example of toxic behavior.\nI don't think people should be able to hid themselves from the hundreds of thousands of people who subscribe to either of those forums, just like I don't think people should automatically blacklist anyone who posts in a conservative sub.\nDoing so is the text book definition of discrimination.",
">\n\nWell, we'll have to agree to disagree then, because you already have the ability to block people, and you should. If someone harasses you, you should be able to get away from that person. If someone brigades your favorite sub, why shouldn't you have the right to choose to tailor your experience as a user, and block everyone from that other sub that banned you because of your membership to r/antiwork or r/workreform?\nExcept this is less severe, because if tomorrow any of those people realize \"hey, you know I was being a dick and I'd rather be part of the larger community\" they can unsub and it's like nothing happened, they're unblocked. Or the entire sub could have a turnaround, modify their rules, stop the red scare and anything that encourages other redditors to hunt down socialists and apply for unblockable status, then all of those members of that community will be unblocked.\nBlacklisting means you're done. People have you on a list somewhere and that's it there's no acceptance. This isn't that, because it allows people to stop being raging assholes and rejoin society.",
">\n\nYou are free to choose how to respond, that's a choice you get to make, likewise people are free to call your actions discriminatory. You are trying to justify discrimination.",
">\n\nOn a personal level, would this be convenient? Sure, it sounds great! The implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy. We test our ideas by having input from people who we may disagree with, and yes, often even dislike. This would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. Yes, it would be a rabbithole they’ve decided to go down, but you’re making it much too easy for people to shut themselves out from alternative opinions.\nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you. This could happen the other way, too. Then you go out into the world, thinking everyone shares your extremely niche opinions and interests, only to learn that, in the real world, you’re extremely alone. \nAm I saying we all need to be friends and get along with people regardless of their politics, opinions and values? No! But if you never even hear from those people, you forget that they exist, and that makes you a lot less self-aware when it comes to your own biases. We don’t need more of that.",
">\n\n\nThe implications, though, would make this a pretty socially irresponsible policy.\n\nIt would be socially irresponsible for society to allow a group of armed militants, threatening violence against your community, to congregate in the vicinity of your community. Law enforcement has the ability to disperse crowds under some conditions for good reason, and we don't have the right to assemble for the wrong reasons.\nIt is socially irresponsible to disregard the fact that at the time of the constitution's framing, nobody had the right to an audience for any purpose whatsoever. Speech was limited by natural barriers which could be regulated -- barriers which modern communications allow us to bypass. Has anyone thought of the consequences? Well, I'm not convinced that there is a lot of thought in the matter, but we've seen them.\n\nThis would just further divide people into even more fractured subgroups, and make it extremely easy for someone to go down a rabbithole. \nFor instance, say you’re a Red Pill guy and you block “feminism,” “liberals,” “bluepill” or any number of other subs, and eventually that leaves you with only people who think like you do and will validate your opinions, further and further radicalizing you.\n\nBut asserting it doesn't make it so. Like so many others here you seem to be arguing from a dogmatic position and not from reason. I didn't get the memo -- why should I believe that when people are engaged in a fight that isn't heading in a good direction, that the responsible thing to do is not to break it up?\nAnd another thing here is that nobody can change radicals. Nobody can force them to agree. So from where does this magical healing power of speech arise? I don't know, but I can tell you that having disregarded the barriers to speech which existed prior to modern communications with no regard to what it is we're doing, can apparently start big fights.\nIt was a valiant effort though...",
">\n\nCreating what we call \"echo chambers\" (is that a thing in English too? Can't remember) where you only allow people of the exact same opinion is not healthy.\nI consider this to be the point of reddit: everything is here. You can talk to anyone about anything. Maybe you talk with someone and they seem great, so you check out their profile - only to discover they participate in a subreddit with the sole purpose of bullying pictures of ugly children.\nYou can look for subreddit with like-minded people and hopefully good moderation. However while I understand your idea I feel like going out of our way to exclude even seeing the existence of whole groups is not a step in the right direction. It's good for us to see other perspectives and if nothing else train our \"scroll past\" abilities, both of which are good for a balanced mind. It also allows you to see what's really happening around you rather than putting blinders on.",
">\n\nThe harder it is to for people to lock themselves in an echo chamber, the better. Chain blocking is already a thing on Twitter and is just one of the most toxic things you can do. \"I hate this person so much that I want to eliminate anyone associated with them from my life.\" It is not a thing well-adjusted adults do.\nBut even if you don't buy the whole \"different viewpoints are good for you\" argument, also consider that people are in subs because they disagree with them or report on them, not because they support them.",
">\n\nYou could also wear a blindfold, so that you don't have to look at ugly people anymore.\nReally though, not every person who comments on a sub just once is a member of that group.\nIf you want more cancel culture bullshit, keep going with your train of thought. You'll never enjoy a life free of \"toxic\" people with your current mindset, though!",
">\n\nBut then people would just stop subscribing to subreddits. \nFor example, I subscribe to a conservative subreddit and multiple other totally unrelated subreddits. \nAs a totally random redditor, would anyone really care about my political leanings if I’m literally just posting my grandma’s sauce recipe? What’s the point?",
">\n\nIt seems you want to block people you disagree with. I've found that by having a good conversation I can usually understand someone's position, though I may disagree with it. You want them to not be able to talk with you. That won't help",
">\n\nStanding up for OP, it’s exhausting to have A Conversation with every single person you see on here spouting some dumb crap. I don’t understand why everyone seems to expect a user to stop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day. I’m not doing that. I’m blocking and I’m moving on.",
">\n\nStrawmanning much there?\nNo (reasonable) person is expecting anyone to \n\nstop everything, have a debate with someone that wants them dead, and do that 20x a day.\n\nWhat is reasonable, and takes way less effort than that, is trying to understand why a collective feels that way about some other collective, because i assure you noone hates people for funsies, especially with such a visceral hate to make actively wanting them dead a real position.\nAnd you don't need to type a word, or even acknowledge the comment, all you need to do is thinking about the reasons, because whatever your collective is, there is a reason.\nYou can, of course, say \"I do not hold this same set of values so your reason is not valid for me, but i recognize you have a reason, and do not hate for funsies\".\nTo put a personal example, i know plenty of religious people, i understand what they get out of religion (because i've taken my time to do so). I also have a different set of values that makes me a non-religious person. Who has an issue with that? Absolutely no-one. Could i have gone the \"Oh, this stupid people belive in fairy tales\" route? For sure, but i'd be way worse for it, and probably would have lost some friendships.",
">\n\nDidn't reddit mods achieve something similar to this in 2020 when a few subs literally got banned from existence and their followers where also banned from participating on subs completely unrelated to the banned subs? Also, I think this has already been achieved on reddit.",
">\n\nPossbly. Other users are saying they've been banned for subreddit memberships. But I'd say this is by far less severe than a ban.",
">\n\nThis feature would allow a person or program to algorithmically determine what communities someone is a member of against their will. The loss of privacy means this is not a practical solution.",
">\n\nHow?\nI can look at your post history to see where you're active. I don't need an algorithm to do adequate guesswork. And if I wanted to block you personally I could always just block you.",
">\n\nIf the tool only looked at post history, then yes that would be true, but that's not what your proposed. \nYou requested a tool that would block based on subscription. Not posts, comments, or level of activity. This would block someone who only subscribes to content, but doesn't interact with it.\nTo do so requires information that is not publicly available, but is of course stored behind the scenes. Were this to be enabled, a bot could progressively block subreddits while checking who was blocked, and thus determine membership even of people who have not posted to that community.",
">\n\nIt's a good point, but I'm not sure if it warrants a delta, yet.\nI'm willing to grant that there can be cases where a user doesn't want their subreddit subscriptions to be discoverable (and, ofc, that's not the purpose of my idea), but what's so special about subscriptions that they warrant protection over and above post history? \nSecondly, as other posters here have mentioned, some are banned in subreddits because of their association with other subreddits. I've assumed for some time that subreddit membership is visible to moderation. Is this not the case?",
">\n\nThe risk is to people who may be using Reddit as a support group for any number of things that people may target them over. Mental health, sexuality, religion - the usual list of suspects.\nFrom my research, these sort of cross-bans come due to public activity in these subreddits. I haven't found any documentation that states that subscriptions can be seen by anyone.",
">\n\n!delta for bringing up a reasonable concern.\nPrivacy should be respected but it should already be the norm unless we breach anonymity even though our post histories are visible.\nAlso, while I don't know if moderation has direct access to subscriptions, I've received content recommendations on my home feed stating something like \"because you've shown interest in a similar community.\" Usage data doesn't appear to be absolutely private, at least to the content recommendation algo, maybe more given other social media sites' usage of personal data.\nAnd besides that, I didn't define what a block would be exactly, just that it is not exactly like a standard block. Other means can be imposed to impede bots. It just depends but I still consider it in the realm of possibility.",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Zncon (2∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nYou can already mute subreddits. If you block enough, your algorithm will get the message. If it doesn't and suggests another shitty subreddit...then you block that one too? Idk, on my home page I rarely get any posts from subs I don't actively follow, and when I do they're pretty closely related to what I do follow.\nTo block 'communities' puts subbreddits in a box that users didn't clarify instead makes things needlessly harder. For example, where would you put r/politics? Most posters there are pretty liberal, but it's officially a pretty neutral platform.",
">\n\nThis already exists. You are able to mute subreddits now.",
">\n\nI’m a firm believer that I should study those who don’t agree with me for many reasons, the main ones being:\n1) to see what they think and why. \n2) I might learn something about a position or belief I hold I wouldn’t if I only listened to those who think like me \n3) what issues are important to them. \nSo I’d be blocked from your feed?",
">\n\nI personally don't understand the point of blocking at all. I can't think of a single thing someone can say that isn't reportable but should be blocked. And the idea of blocking people by the subreddits they subscribe to is even stupider. People might accidentally subscribe to them, people might be just subscribed to them to have debates with people that have opposing views, and no matter what the sub is, you will end up banning an enormous amount of people who aren't \"insane\", not to mention that this will make Reddit even more of a bunch of separated eco-chambers.",
">\n\nThey kinda already do",
">\n\nYou really don't see the potential cons in being able to hand make your own echo chamber where your beliefs are constantly and consistently reinforced? Really?",
">\n\nIf your mental health will improve by blocking entire subreddits I think you should just leave reddit. At that point it's not a reddit problem, it's a you-problem.",
">\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment. I also think that you’re making a lot of assumptions on the effects it would have on redditor behavior. \nWould people decide to leave controversial subs in order to have their opinions heard by more people on the controversial ones? I think most would choose the subs that they feel most emotionally connected to, and for many people belonging to a controversial or ‘besieged’ community provides that sense of connection. And if they really wanted to have a posts seen by everyone, they’d just make a milquetoast alt account. \nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. It’s a very conservative proposal, when you really think about it, putting freedom from being exposed to unpleasantness above freedom of expression.",
">\n\n\nTo sum things up a bit, what you’re proposing here is basically the democratization of censorship. I actually think it’s an interesting thought experiment.\n\nCensorship has certain connotations though, and it is antithetical to what I'm proposing in my opinion because it is another way of limiting your choice in the matter. I've explained elsewhere that i consider this a necessary simulation of the natural barriers to speech which we need. If you're sick of the diatribe going on at a certain gathering, and you physically leave, putting distance between you so that nobody can communicate, are you censoring that group? Not exactly. \n\n\nBut for me the biggest problem with your approach is that it assumes that democratizing censorship would increase the quality of discourse, and thus be good for democracy, when there’s a very real possibility that it would simply entrench majoritarian positions and suppress any form of criticism, valid or not. \n\nThis is predicated on an assumption that what I am proposing is censorship. Having a decent conversation with people of opposing views is certainly an improvement to being forced into an argument with them. Not having the ability to put distance between ourselves and other people tends to lend to the latter scenario. I believe this is a contributing factor to the increase in hostilities between groups over the internet.",
">\n\nI’m confused, can’t you just mute the subreddit you’d rather not see or hear from?",
">\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers?\nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.",
">\n\n\nThat wouldn't be hard to code but I wonder if the processor overhead would be too much for their servers? \nThey implement the feature, every Tom, Dick, and Harry decides to block out thousands of people at once and then you have the population of Reddit all screaming because the servers crashed.\n\nAs fun as that could be to watch, I don't think that would be a problem. At least I would go about it so that you're not blocking users directly, just the subreddits, so there's far less than thousands of entities being blocked in a single operation. It would affect what content you see on per user basis though.\n\nThere is no upside to Reddit to implement these changes.\n\nI suppose that depends on how you look at it. Social media sites have some interaction between users, so reducing toxicity to improve the community could give reddit a bump in competitive edge once Elon's plotting comes to fruition -- we'll see. And it wouldn't hurt in avoiding the big threats to social media. All social media converging toward being the same conglomerate is not a boat I'd want to be in, but that's me.\n\nBesides, it's more fun to sit here and look down my nose at people who can't scroll past things they don't like.\n\nAnd you should have every right. I'd just hope to minimize the consequences.",
">\n\nNo I just misunderstood the way you wanted to go about it.\nI thought you meant to block users that were on undesirable subs.\nI never go on popular so I avoid seeing stuff posted, but I could see where that feature would be useful.",
">\n\nRIF, the Reddit is Fun app has always done this.",
">\n\nYou already have that function in the 'mute subreddit' option available at the minimum to Android users (as that is what I'm using) by going to the community you don't wish to see, tapping the three dots at the top right and then selecting 'mute x' where x is the subreddit.\nWhile this doesn't block individual users who post on those subreddits, if you never see the subreddits you find offensive, you will only very rarely see the posters you find offensive.\nSo your concern about the software challenge is already overcome.",
">\n\nThis doesn't address the redditors themselves, who in my experience do not quarantine themselves according to areas of genuine interest. Many apparently enjoy the drama they stir up.",
">\n\nSo basically you’re only seeking information that supports your confirmation bias. That’s exactly how people become ignorant.",
">\n\nEvery time I've posted in the r/FreeSpeech sub, I find my comments are met with far right clowns and ignorant rubes. Yet I am neither of these (although one might argue that I'm ignorant, admittedly, but I try to fix that whenever I can).\nIf you were inclined to stay away from fools like that, you would end up blocking my account by virtue of my association.\nI supposed the question would be: do you consider that an acceptable trade-off? I'm just one account, sure, but there are others. What's the threshold for this sort of thing?",
">\n\n\nI supposed the question would be: do you consider that an acceptable trade-off? I'm just one account, sure, but there are others. What's the threshold for this sort of thing?\n\nYeah, I think it's a tradeoff and I think it's worthwhile. We'd have to make adjustments on how we use reddit -- but at max a block in the sense that I'm proposing is reversible.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Cab000se – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nI can understand blocking subreddits but blocking all the users from that subreddit does not make sense.",
">\n\nI havent blocked a single person and never will so i cant relate. I dont care that someone makes the dumbest comment on reddit, chances are im not gonna see him again and if i do i wont notice so blocking them or not feels the exact same to me, except thst blocking them is more work so i dont.",
">\n\nCon you missed: not everybody subscribed to a subreddit is necessarily part of the community. They might be there for research purposes, out of curiosity, to understand more about the people and dynamics in the community etc. \nSure, that won’t be the majority of subscribers. But blocking just by subscription would be a very blunt instrument."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.