Thread

1. nomilk · 1790655652 · focus · HN ↗

   The biggest problem I have with reddit is mods can slowly but systematically ban users who express unfavourable opinions, and over time, anyone casually browsing could mistakenly believe those views are unpopular, whereas in reality everyone with that view (everyone who spoke it, anyway) was banned.

   To give a simple example, one video game franchise subreddit bans any negative discussion on the most recent title. Over 5-10 years, this shielded them from negative feedback. But the franchise has tanked because core users weren't listened to, and they ended up making something nobody wanted.

   1. Drupon · 1790661324 · focus · HN ↗

      To give another simple example, Israel has managed to pollute the mods of r/worldnews enough to make it a singularly active cheerleader of the genocide until the last year or two.

      1. lysp · 1790675458 · focus · HN ↗

         This is what comes to mind for me too.

         As an example, I am well aware of how strict r/worldnews is moderated on IvP topics, so I am extra careful to be factual rather than simply making comments based on more general thoughts, like I do for other areas.

         I have responded to some comments in the past by responding by quoting legal cases, news links I sourced my comment from, or from subject experts.

         It doesn't matter how accurate or factually proven the comment is. If it's even slightly critical, it'll end up with votes of anywhere from -10 to -50 from all the down votes.

         For other people's comments, anything negative that hasn't been down voted into oblivion will always have the "cross" icon next to them, meaning it's listed as "controversial", which is when it has a large number of down votes, plus up votes to balance it out.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.