
The Truth About Reddit - followmylee
http://adage.com/article/the-media-guy/truth-reddit-unnecessary-apology/241277/
======
zalzane
>You know what? Humans, especially during times of crisis and confusion,
speculate. They do it offline and, in 2013, they increasingly do it online.
The fact of the matter is that one of the Boston suspects (later revealed to
be Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) seen in the early grainy surveillance-video stills
released by the FBI did resemble Tripathi.

I dont really understand this section. Is the author trying to defend reddit's
holier art thou attitude towards the world and their tendency to stick their
nose in matters they shouldnt in the name of internet justice?

>And Reddit actually has much better checks and balances in place -- thanks to
a combination of the upvote system and moderator intervention.

This is just plain false. Subreddits are not moderated by reddit employees,
only by the people who founded the subreddit and whoever they choose to
moderate the subreddit with them. This is why hate groups like /r/atheism and
fox-news-tier biased news subreddits like /r/poltics can exist. Hell, the only
visible admin-intervention I've ever heard of on reddit was when they took
down the child porn reddits, and even that required -two- pieces by major news
outlets on how reddit was hosting child porn.

The upvote/downvote system is literally only useful for propagating
viral/interesting content. Far too many people are relying on reddit as a news
source nowadays, and thanks to the upvote/downvote system, all it takes is 51%
disapproval for an article to virtually disappear. Since everyone uses the
downvote button to say "i dont like this content" rather than "this content
isnt good/isnt relevant", you get lots of wonderful skews. This is why
/r/poltics has such a intense liberal bias - all it takes is a 51% of the
users to disapprove of an article that supports republicans in order for the
submission to disappear from view of everyone else. Imagine how horrible the
news would be if an entire political viewpoint is censored just because the
majority believes differently. That's news on reddit.

~~~
lowboy
> Subreddits are not moderated by reddit employees, only by the people who
> founded the subreddit and whoever they choose to moderate the subreddit with
> them

That's still moderation - the article didn't say that the moderation was from
admins or reddit staff. Also, there are reddit-wide rules[0] that apply
regardless of sub.

Also, r/atheism isn't a hate group. There's plenty of asshats and the
occasional hateful post, but it's not a hate group in general. Take a look at
the sub[1] on any given day, and most of it isn't hateful

[0]: <http://www.reddit.com/rules/>

[1]: <http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/>

~~~
err_badprocrast
OK, easy example. Top item right now on r/atheism (only sample taken, you
couldn't pay me to visit that subreddit):

[http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1e0vcv/if_there_is_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1e0vcv/if_there_is_a_god_words_carved_into_the_cell_wall/)

A few comments down (above the fold on even a tiny monitor) we have this
exchange:

Poster talking about his Holocaust-surviving grandfather (32 upvotes):

"My grandfather became a believer, but he didn't go all orthodox. He just
believed. His reasoning was that if it weren't for god - he would have died
many times during the war."

The reply, with 100 upvotes:

"Explanations like that are precisely what makes me hate religion. When people
tell themselves these things, they betray an inner conviction that they are
somehow better and more special than the countless men women and children who
died at the hands of the Nazis. Makes me sick when people say things like
that."

Link to comment:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1e0vcv/if_there_is_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1e0vcv/if_there_is_a_god_words_carved_into_the_cell_wall/c9vtodx)

~~~
mindcrime
So what's your point exactly? You could argue that that comment is
insensitive, maybe even caustic... you could argue that the person who posted
it is a bit of an ass probably. But how does any of that support the idea that
/r/atheism is a "hate group"?

~~~
err_badprocrast
I agree "hate group" is stronger wording than would be appropriate (at any
rate I don't want to quibble over a definition of that term) but I personally
dislike intolerance - and I avoid forums[1] where it is considered upvote-
worthy rhetoric.

There are insensitive and caustic comments _everywhere_ \- but when they are
promoted through upvotes they discourage participation from affected
individuals, breeding an environment where people only feel welcome if they
subscribe to the dominant opinions. This results in a hollow echo chamber,
which is not a satisfactory equilibrium for any forum trying to encourage
healthy discussion.

1\. Pre-internet definition of forum.

~~~
mindcrime
Fair enough. I also _generally_ dislike intolerance, but I do have my areas
where I find it hard to be tolerant. As an atheist, I have very little use for
religion, religious dogma or teachings, etc., and I think that religion is
actively harmful to society. So in that regard, I'm probably not so far
removed from the guy you quoted above. But... I have no problem being tolerant
of religious _people_ in that I don't find much need to go around trying to
convince everybody who isn't an atheist that they are an idiot, or doing the
inverse of what I have having done to me - excessive proselytizing. I'm not
out to convince Christians or Hindus or Muslims, etc. to disavow their faith.
But when I come across situations (public education, for example) where
religious beliefs start affecting things that I believe belong outside the
bounds of religion, then I start to get a bit prickly about the whole thing as
well.

I guess that was just a long-winded way of saying "it's complicated".

The other thing I'll add is this: I do visit /r/atheism, albeit infrequently.
And you're probably right that it's not a particularly nice place to visit for
people who are actively religious. That doesn't bother me only because I go in
with the assumption that they aren't going to be there, aren't interested in
being there, and that the few who do come in and stick around are the kind of
people who can look past the stylistic stuff and still engage in a
conversation which is - hopefully - enlightening for both sides.

I guess that was a long-winded way of saying "it's all about expectations".

Nonetheless, I can understand why you might shy away from /r/atheism. That
place has it's own character and it's not for everybody. But what forum is?

------
pavel_lishin
> _3\. If you regularly read Reddit, it makes the rest of the internet seem
> stale._

This is absolutely true; it's actually very interesting watching a new 'meme'
make its way through the internet, and then the personal, pipeline. In the
morning you'll see a reddit post, in the afternoon your friends will send you
links to it, and your mom will mention it to you when you call her that night.

> _it's not like Reddit is a major focus of corporate attention, either._

And thank $DEITY - the last thing we (it) need(s) is an owner trying to
exploit it for another subsidiary's benefit.

On the other hand, it's been long speculated that Reddit is constantly being
gamed, that corporate voting cabals are responsible for advertising content
rising to the front page, and plenty of other news sources lift information
without bothering to credit Reddit or its users.

~~~
nhm
_> In the morning you'll see a reddit post, in the afternoon your friends will
send you links to it, and your mom will mention it to you when you call her
that night._

Increase that timescale to days for friends and weeks for parents, and you'll
be about right.

~~~
jiggy2011
It's interesting how some nerdy phrases/memes have made their way into the
mainstream.

I was watching the UK Apprentice the other day and during the "boardroom"
scene they were showing a group of stylish , upwardly mobile, adult business
women arguing about whether or not something was an "epic fail".

The term "epic fail" is a reference to an obscure neogeo game called blazing
star which I doubt any of these women would ever have played.

------
Centigonal
I think this article may be overstating the point through its use of the term
"mainstream media" to refer to sites like the Gawker Media network. Those guys
have had the same business model for upward of a decade, and the only change
the rise of sites like Reddit has made to that model is that it's now even
easier for them to find content to syndicate.* When The Washington Post and
the New Yorker and the BBC are sourcing their big stories from Reddit -- that
is when I'd be alarmed.

*...err, syndicate implies paying the original content owners. Is there a word for credited and monetized reproduction of media without profit sharing?

~~~
cerales
Indeed. Nice little sleight of hand where the article reference "mainstream
media" and then switches to "mainstream blog media" before citing any
examples.

------
purplelobster
Reddit's gradual decline has long ago tipped the scales. I was on reddit
starting '08 I think, so I didn't see what the initial community was like, it
was already fairly big by then, but nowhere near what it is today.

Just a few days ago, there was this trailer on the front page, for a movie
with mecha robots fighting godzillas or something, and it was just...
terrible. For whatever reason, maybe to get some reassurance, I read the
comments. 3000 people falling over themselves wanking over it. In disbelief I
loaded more and more comments just to try and find at least one negative
comment. What are these people, 17 year-olds? And then it hit me. They ARE 17
year-olds.

I get it, subreddits blah blah blah, but there's no point. Sticking to
subreddits destroys the sense of community which is so important for online
forums. When the front page is dominated by teenagers, how long do you think
others will stick to the site? Not to mention, having to log in to see your
own specialized front page is a hassle when you're on many devices and don't
really care enough to have an active account. Subreddit discovery is also too
difficult, and then there's the whole filter bubble going on. I'd prefer a
general purpose forum with higher quality people than hiding in some corner of
a site dominated by teenagers.

More and more, HN is filling that purpose for me, with a healthy balance of
tech and non-tech. I sort of wish there was a separation between "tech" and
"general" though, so that the general discussions could expand without
affecting the tech side of things.

~~~
skinnymuch
What movie was it? If it was Pacific Rim as it sounds like, then that reaction
could make sense. Guillermo Del Toro (Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth) is directing
it.

It might not be that movie though. Still, have you seen the top raved about
films on HN (there was a frontpage show hn on this recently)? Pretty obvious,
typical choices. And there is nothing wrong with that. I'm cool with your
reddit opinions. Just weird to use comments about a movie as an example
against reddit and then swing over to endorsing HN.

~~~
purplelobster
It was Pacific Rim, but regardless of director (loved Pan's Labyrinth), this
movie is clearly catering to the Michael Bay mindless action crowd which,
while having fans of all ages, generally are targeted at teenagers. Maybe
that's disputable? Personally I don't think so... Also, it's not so much that
people loved the trailer, more that it was 3000 comments of people explaining
how much they "just came", and not a single critical voice. I really doubt
that would be the case on HN if it had been submitted/allowed here.

~~~
skinnymuch
Yeah, HN probably wouldn't have gushing, juvenile, and repetitive comments,
one after another like reddit did.

But still, the movies that are gushed about here are so typical and mainstream
and many times mirror imdb's top movies that it really makes any case of
trying to use movie opinions to show HN as better than Reddit rather silly.

------
tokenadult
From the submission: "Reddit's longtime tagline is 'The front page of the
internet,' but it could just as easily be 'The crib sheet for weary bloggers
who need to hit page-view quotas.'"

Yep. I've learned mostly to tune out any incidental mention I see of such
"stories" in the news-seeking methods I use. I'm not a fan of linkbait-style
stories wherever they come from.

"If you regularly read Reddit, it makes the rest of the internet seem stale."

I don't regularly read Reddit, so I don't put the hypothesis of this statement
to the test, but I find plenty of interesting things to read online without
Reddit, so I think I can live without Reddit.

"Simon Dumenco is the 'Media Guy' media columnist for Advertising Age."

I was expecting him to explain how Reddit might actually make money to recover
the large investment that went into buying out Reddit from its founders, but I
see no explanation of that in the article. It's still not clear to me how
Reddit can ever become anything other than a community of free-riders.

~~~
alaskamiller
Maybe I should have wrote the article. I have a 6 year badge on Reddit. In a
few more months it'll roll over to be a 7 year badge.

Currently the various revenue streams:

1\. Reddit Gold. Pay $3 for a month of pure margins for Reddit. In return the
user gets account modifications, minor UX tweaks, ability to save links.
Within the community it's often used to reward others for their posts or
contributions. Often gets handed out in the larger more mainstream subreddits,
especially AskReddit where the user generated content worthy of merit earn one
or two or sometimes even ten little gold stars.

2\. Ads. Self-service model, pay $20 and get crazy CPMs from a group of people
that have adblock on.

3\. Merchandise. T-shirts out the wazoo. Reddit makes $5 to $8 a shirt from
official channels and various other knick knacks from redditgifts.com

4\. Exchanges. You buy exchange credits to trade amongst each other in the
community, things like socks, shirts, snacks. They keep exploring new
verticals, now there are comics and a variety of other things.

Reddit has the same problem as Tumblr. They both essentially are feeds that's
replaced Facebook for a big demographics that in turn has replaced television
with said feeds.

Tumblr is embracing native ads, they opened an LA office to better interface
with media buyers. They're shooting for the moon on closing 6 figure accounts
to sell more native ads.

Reddit is going the less glamorous route.

We'll see who wins.

------
ultimoo
Most of the default subreddits could be classified not only as mainstream but
also much diluted from what they were a few years ago. The way I use the site
nowadays I entirely unsubscribed from most of the default subreddits.

In the smaller subreddits, karma doesn't matter as much as the rest of the
site, which is what makes them better IMO. YMMV though.

------
420365247
a few years ago Reddit was a totally differant community. I think word got out
and more and more people got into it and it evolved into what it has
become...i still head over there once in a while, but most of the posts are
not any good anyhow...reminds me of the old DIGG

~~~
burntsushi
Eh. I absolutely agree with this analysis for the major subreddits. The
ecosystem and quality of content has definitely decreased.

However, I still find plenty of very high quality content in smaller
subreddits. I wasn't a Digg user myself, but I suspect the subreddit aspect of
reddit is the difference maker: folks seeking HQ content can stick around in
the smaller corners while the more popular corners of reddit become
mainstream.

And here's an anecdote: over the years, I've noticed more and more of my non-
technical friends becoming reddit users. But most of them seem almost
oblivious to the fact that there are subreddits outside of the ones you're
subscribed to by default.

[EDIT] - spelling, thanks sliverstorm

~~~
longone
I completely agree. Reddit, for me, would be useless without niche subreddits.
There was a time when you could go to the front page and find links to some
really interesting articles or videos, but these days its "guess which
celebrity I met and look at the funny pose they made." Thats fine and all but
just not for me. However, I can still subscribe to smaller subreddits and have
good discussions with people.

I'm finding the same thing with friends as well. The popularity of that site
has jumped so much in the last two years or so. I feel like an old man.

------
JoeKM
I find subreddits that have disabled image posting to be far more insightful
and interesting. Once a subreddit allows image posting it degrades to memes,
unless it's properly moderated.

------
sk5t
This was not an informative article--quite superficial unless one knows
nothing about Reddit.

------
6ren
> state-of-the-art-circa-1998, text-centric user interface

Said like it's a bad thing... reddit works great on less powerful devices, and
doesn't crash my browser, unlike mainstream websites usually do (actually,
almost always).

Dear "Mainstream" "Print" media: 1. if it only runs on later devices, it's not
_mainstream_ , it's niche; 2. _print_ can be done with text, it doesn't need
to be pictorial, video, audio, interactive, nor assembling 20 webservices and
APIs from across the universe.

------
orangethirty
Reddit is also a great tool for marketing and sourcing talent.

------
nilved
I thought this would be able the misogyny, racism and paedophilia.

~~~
NegativeK
That's just the internet in general.

~~~
cerales
And yet reddit is corporate-owned, being hailed ITT as "the mainstream media",
and there's plenty of evidence of senior Reddit moderators showing solidarity
for the more criminal subreddits. Defending Reddit's dark side by comparing it
to the wild world of message boards and comment sections is disingenuous:
Reddit has a pervasive culture of "free speech" at all costs, and this is a
consequence of it

~~~
voltagex_
>showing solidarity for the more criminal subreddits.

Like?

~~~
timpattinson
/r/picsofdeadkids /r/beatingwomen

~~~
prawn
I know the original remark was "more criminal", but are these criminal or
tasteless and ugly?

------
cuillevel3
Threads like these show the ongoing decline of hacker news.

~~~
michaelwww
I'm not sure what criteria you are using to form this opinion. I took a look
at the front page from 2 years ago and it looks about the same to me.

[http://web.archive.org/web/20110505135841/http://news.ycombi...](http://web.archive.org/web/20110505135841/http://news.ycombinator.com/)

------
thoughtcriminal
The truth about Reddit is that it's a clone of Digg, and Digg was a clone of
Slashdot.

Hacker News is a clone of Slashdot too. Just giving credit where credit is
due.

~~~
wslh
They are technical clones but not social clones. The technical part in some
way is irrelevant.

~~~
jbooth
It's a mix, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message>

Certain commenting schemes lend themselves to "loudest retard gets most
visibility" and some attempt to steer towards the opposite.

~~~
mtowle
>FIRST

