[doginasuit]

Platform algorithms are a big part of the problem but I think this misses another important part. I don't think it is simple as a passive silent majority being drowned out by a few loud voices.

For most of its history, Reddit didn't have an algorithm that promoted stories beyond upvotes and time since posting, that might even still be the case. Despite this, we have still seen a steady trend toward extreme views on the platform. To be fair, it has the reputation (at least in some circles) of being the most redeemable of the major social media platforms, probably thanks to the simplicity of its algorithm. Unfortunately, that's not saying much, it's a low bar to clear. What explains the polarization of Reddit in the absence of a bouncer amplifying extremism?

I think there is a significant percentage of users that do not initiate extreme content but participate in amplifying it. They may even find it problematic, but they really don't like the extreme views they hear on the other side. Or maybe it is the content they came to see out of morbid curiosity, something I am guilty of sometimes. The bar is so crowded because people find it preferable to the empty one down the street that has the expectation that people behave respectfully.

Incredible presentation, but I think the awareness we need to spread is a movement away from social media in general. As a social outlet it is generally incompatible with healthy social functioning and individual wellbeing. Face-to-face interaction has inherent guardrails for avoiding these problems and supporting the kind of social experience that we are really looking for.

[swed420]

> For most of its history, Reddit didn't have an algorithm that promoted stories beyond upvotes and time since posting, that might even still be the case.

Reddit is heavily botted, including by capital interests, and has been for a long time. This includes basic up/down vote activity.

> I think there is a significant percentage of users that do not initiate extreme content but participate in amplifying it.

Yes, it's probably initiated by bots, and then real users are easily persuaded to follow the manufactured herd.

These issues are not exclusive to reddit, either.

[doginasuit]

The problem with the bots explanation is that it is unfalsifiable. On top of that, this fits a very recognizable pattern of human behavior. I'm very skeptical that blocking all the bots would even move the needle.

[swed420]

It's unfalsifiable, therefore it isn't happening? Not very convincing for anyone who's engaged with these platforms where reactions happen seconds after your own clicks.

Alternatively, ask yourself, would monied interests be inclined to exploit these platforms? Of course they would. It'd need a solid explanation as to why they wouldn't.

[doginasuit]

I never said I think it isn't happening, I just don't think it is driving the phenomenon. Platforms like Lemmy do not have enough traffic to justify a bot presence by monied interests and their general discussion communities are just as extreme as Reddit, if not more.

[swed420]

Likely because distributed platforms like lemmy/mastodon suffer from the "fiefdom" problem, plus siloed communities forming due to ideologically defined rules.

https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/

[gruez]

>Reddit is heavily botted, including by capital interests.

Is that why /r/all is consistently anti-capitalism and anti-business?

[dmbche]

Read The society of spectacle by guy debord

[nozzlegear]

Can you give us a summary, so we can discuss what you're alluding to without a several-day waiting period while we read the book?

[dmbche]

Not really, or not better than Wikipedia would. Sometimes it's more pertinent to read than to chat about a thing you might read.

You can also not read it, you do you, but it's enlightening.

[swed420]

It's manufactured controlled opposition which is designed to look crazier than unchecked capitalism, and it's succeeding wildly at its mission.

See: wsws.org as a longstanding external example

[gruez]

So if reddit is more left than you are, it's "manufactured controlled opposition which is designed to look crazier than unchecked capitalism", and I guess if it's less left than you are, then they're a bunch of DINOs (LINOs?) like Manchin or Sinema?

[swed420]

It's a bunch of siloed group think offered in a variety of flavors. Definitely not a monolith, though basic liberal types (who virtue signal as being more "left" than they really are) might be the most common user.

Siloed groups are the easiest to monetize to advertisers, and they're also not a threat to a faux democracy.

[tekla]

My god, Bluesky is probably actually run as manufactured controlled opposition from all the crazy stuff you see on there. It makes perfect sense. HOW DEEP DOES THIS GO.

[swed420]

Yes, and it provides something for the X/twitter reactionaries to "react" to.

rightward_ratchet++;

[throwawayffffas]

It's pretty clear, the platforms feed and profit of promoting the loudest most toxic views out there. It's time to just treat these platforms as publishers instead of platforms and make them liable for their speech. Because that is what it is the automation around the method the speech is delivered is irrelevant. As is the viability of the platforms in a environment where they are responsible for what happens on them. We were fine before them, some of them are already dying.

[dwa3592]

I personally feel Reddit is extremely polarized and toxic. It really depends on the community.

[okr]

Yeah, have the same sentiment towards Twitter before it has been bought by Mr. Musk. You were always close to being banned. And the American government was colluding. I don't like the tone on X now, but hey, no one silences me, and that is awesome.

[nickburns]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_ban

[avidruntime]

How was the US Gov colluding? My recollection of the twitter files was it largely blew out of proportion (for non-tech aligned audiences) that Twitter received tips from CISA regarding misinformation/disinformation and Twitter decided whether to take action on accounts, sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't.

[gosub100]

A group of whistleblowers tried to come forward about twitter before Elon bought it. There were entire departments dedicated to suppressing certain ideas and trends, while amplifying others.

[array_key_first]

Realistically this is something you need to do to some degree. I mean, you probably want to silence the "kill yourself" part of twitter and want to amplify the "please don't kill yourself" part.

Regardless, I think it's fairly clear that twitter is as manufactured as it ever was.

[nullc]

> that might even still be the case.

No way, hasn't been true for many years. Try viewing the site from a few different people's systems.

[tipsytoad]

As someone who basically only hangs out on HN, what are the trends on Reddit? I thought it would vary by channel

[AMerrit]

There are still good niche and well moderated subreddits, but the big ones are pretty annoying. Lots of most extreme version of headline/summary to get the clicks. Tonnes of bot comments, especially with the rise of LLM. Repetitive joke responses.

[Ntrails]

Honestly take me back to time ordered forums. Threads, voting, algorithms were all a mistake.

[antisthenes]

They still exist. You just need to be content with smaller communities.

[micromacrofoot]

they're probably more numerous than ever, just harder to find

[thin_carapace]

if existed a term less crass than 'reddit circle jerk', I would use it. people love it for a reason, bipolar thinking in a herd is natural, we are networked XOR cells by design.

id be seperating social media for any related analysis, as two major milestones demarcate distinct usage patterns (first algorithms, then LLMs). imo those factors would influence the discussion about as much as a platforms inherent construction.

toxicity has evolved over time, we have progressed from mere keyboard warriors, to nation states delivering propaganda campaigns with a click, now finally half the internet is bot activity.

[Arkhaine_kupo]

> Despite this, we have still seen a steady trend toward extreme views on the platform.

There were 3 conditions that were working and were removed very very quickly

1) it was a web application only. Which enforces an interaction that is more contientous

2) it skewed older. Compared to other sites like IFunny or Instagram the age profile was closer to 30 than 12.

3) the upvote/downvote mechanic was used to upvote relevant content not something you agreed with. And downvote to drown overused jokes, lack of nuance posts etc.

But in 2020 reddit destroyed 3rd party apis and went full head on the app.

Age plummeted, app useage is mroe casual than laptops and length of posts went full brainrot and lastly there was no enforcement to teach people what upvotes meant. So it became thumbs up or down, and the jokes went from heavily downvoted to always the top comment.

150 million users in 6 months is the death of any conversation and reddit did it on purpose to try an IPO.

[CM30]

It also had a design that was offputting to a lot of casual users, which probably kept out folks that didn't really have anything meaningful to say/didn't want to contribute much. Same with Hacker News: the average Joe doesn't find this site all that appealing compared to Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/whatever, so it mostly appeals to more techy, intellectual users than those platforms do.

[genghisjahn]

Slashdot's rating system was the best I've ever seen. But I'm sure it doesn't help improve engagement, in fact the system had so many rules (for an online ratings system) that I'd guess it reduced engagement. Which might have been a feature in its glory days.

[CM30]

You mean how you had to give a reason for your rating rather than just choosing 'like' or 'dislike'?

Honestly, I think that more nuanced setup may help limited toxicity quite a lot. If there's no general upvote/downvote option, people might have to actually think why they like/dislike something rather than treating the system as a "I dislike this because I disagree and everyone should think the same way I do" setup.

It's why I quite like the reaction systems some forum scripts have. Yeah they're not perfect (many still have like/dislike options by default), but giving users reasons for why they upvote/downvote a post makes things a lot more meaningful. I also quite like how for some of them, agree and disagree don't actually change how the post appears or count as a rating. They just exist so people can see how many people agree or disagree with something and that's it.

[ishouldstayaway]

(3) here was always just a fantasy. It never actually worked that way.

[Arkhaine_kupo]

Any platform with millions of users and dedicated communities will be hard to generalise, but there were countless examples of it happening.

Length of posts has plummeted, "meme" content and "twitter" like language was repudiated while now its basically the main mode of communication.

There used to be "famous" usernames, not everyone agreed with them but most people considered their input valuable, ending perhaps with the famous Unidan incident.

I would admit that having been in the site for 15 years the degradation has been continuos and small communities were much better than default subs from the get go. But the Eternal September post App release has been irreversible and made the site culture absolute trash

[nozzlegear]

Agreed. Moderators would even try to use custom CSS to remove the downvote buttons on their subs to prevent people from downvoting comments they disagreed with, as that was against "reddiquette." But oftentimes you'd want to indulge your monkey brain and punish people who have differing opinions by making the number go down and their comments go gray.