> Reddit has for years coached people to 'remember the human' and backs it up with various rules and bans. They want people to treat each other well.

Are you saying that Reddit is a good example? Because that would be a laughable point to make

A good example of what? A platform not seeking to maximize outrage?

Yes. They banned the Donald Trump subreddit. That one subreddit produced more outrage than probably everything else in the history of Reddit combined. And they banned it. A company seeking to maximize outrage would not do that.

You don't want your customers OD'ing, you want them to keep coming back.

Just because there's a limit to the outrage tolerated, it doesn't mean that outrage isn't part of the plan.

You're supporting my argument. You're saying it's not in their best interests to maximize outrage.

That's where the goalposts are and that's where they are going to stay: whether or not they seek to maximize outrage.

You're just looking at it as "maximise peak outrage" when the other people are talking about "maximise outrage over time."

I was responding to someone else who said it. They did say '...whose business model depends on...outrage'.

So ya, that interpretation is the logical one. If your business model depends on something, you would be optimizing for maximizing it over time.

A business depending on a dependable local water source can still be destroyed by a flood.

It may be better to say that they want to maximize effective outrage. Or put another way to 'optimize' outrage. They are really good at it.

I think the "maximize outage" is a good simplification 80% of the time, but the "goal chain" goes from there to maximum advertising revenue, and that requires happy advertisers. And in the case of reddit I'm not sure how much revenue comes from gold and how much that was harmed by people saying "don't give money to this site hosting hate-speech".

A company seeking to maximize profit from outrage would keep it up until they engage in behavior that threatens ad revenue, like if they were talking about murdering police officers or something.

Here are the goalposts: 'seek to maximize outrage'

Please do not add any extra words to that, thus shifting the goalposts. Here you have added the word 'profit'. I never said anything about profit.

You're proving everyone's point that outrage drives attention: one can get a lot of engagement from deliberate misunderstanding. No, those were not the goalposts to anyone but the most pedantic of pedants.

Someone argued they maximize outraged.

I argued that they do not.

I don't think it's pedantic at all to say the goalposts are whether or not they maximize outrage.

I totally understand that the word's 'Reddit' and 'Twitter' and 'Trump' are going to trigger people into wanting to talk more broadly about those topics. There are lots of other places they can go and do that. I had a very specific and narrowly defined argument.

Twitter and Reddit are corporations that have to give the outward appearance of civility for advertisers and regulators. I don't think they're sincere. Their business model relies on engagement, and outrage drives up engagement.

So what you're saying is deep down they wish they could maximize outrage but they don't because they want to appease advertisers and regulators.

We're not disagreeing. I wasn't speaking to what's in their heart, only to what they actually do.

No, what I'm saying is they maximize outrage, but pretend that they care about civility.

You yourself said neither platform was successful in their attempts, that's because those "attempts" are there for show. They can't reduce outrage without reducing their profits.

> No, what I'm saying is they maximize outrage, but pretend that they care about civility.

Then you're wrong. They don't just pretend to care, they take actions. I've already given several examples.

> You yourself said neither platform was successful in their attempts

No, I did not say that. I said 'arguably' and that was precisely so people wouldn't try to turn this into a debate about how good they are at it. I said they try and they absolutely do try.

> because those "attempts" are there for show

And now you're contradicting yourself. You said they only pretend to care and now you said they make attempts. You keep flip flopping on what it is that you are even saying.

I can't read minds. Evidently you can and that's an awesome skill, congratulations. But everything I've said refers only to what they actually do. And what they do is to take actions that are clearly detrimental to maximizing outrage. Something you've just agreed with, if we extract all of your mind reading voodoo magic.

FYI. This is the tweet he got banned for:

"I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!" 06 Jan 21

I can't link to the tweet. But it has been reinstated on Twitter after the acquisition.

I'm unsure if you're making some kind of argument or just adding a footnote.

If that's an argument, it doesn't change anything about what I said.

The point is that he got banned for de-escalation of violence.

That was the final straw, yes. And if they were seeking to maximize outrage, they wouldn't have done that.

Many people would see that as a dog-whistle tweet that enouraged violence. Communiation is very complex these days.

The thing about dog whistles is that you have to be a "dog" to hear them. What does it tell you, if you constantly hear dog whistles everywhere.

I don't hear any dog whistles. That's probably because I'm a socialist and not a "dog". I'm not the one focusing on undesirable elements in society. I see a lot of struggling poor people though. People who vote for con-men populists out of desperation.

Are you perhaps overly pedantic and focused too much on the idea of "maximizing outrage to exclusion of everything else" instead of "finding a local maxima of outrage that doesn't upset our advertisers or actually drive people away?"

It's not broadening the scope though, it's an equally valid interpretation of the wording of the original claim.

reddit is a funnel away from establishment media toward sites like bitchute and obscure conspiracy groups. Every shadowban is a new alt-right acolyte.

You're a fool if you think that the way reddit handles content moderation does not create angry people.

i said they do not seek to maximize outrage.

please keep the goalposts right there and address only that one specific argument. as it's the only argument i'm making.

While we’re on the subject of social media I feel the need to point out that you don’t need to keep saying this and it also doesn’t make much sense to bother. This isn’t a debate club meetup. People can latch on to parts of the conversation and focus on that if they want.

I do not agree with your characterization of what's occurring here.

See the person above us:

>You're a fool if you think that the way reddit handles content moderation does not create angry people.

I never said that. And they're making personal attacks based on this thing I never said. That isn't what you just described.

It’s internet points. Is it truly worth moderating the entire thread?

If you see the alternatives as moderate the thread or ignore it all, I agree with you. But for me the alternatives are moderate the thread or allow them to drag me into a hundred debates about a hundred different things. I was going to participate in the discussion either way.

> Reddit has for years coached people to 'remember the human' and backs it up

Tell that to the volunteers over at /r/BanFemaleHateSubs

Reddit does about the minimum it can to avoid signifiant media backlash.

As per my original comment:

>Is either platform successful in their attempts? Arguably, no. But that wasn't my point, I was addressing the claim that they seek to maximize outrage.

> I don't know about reddit enough and just struggling to even guess the context here.

Reddit is extremely massive. With uber millions of people on it. And anyone can make a subreddit about anything. And they get extremely specific. Like someone might make one called r/FuckHNpedants for people who dislike all of the pedants on this site. And they post screenshots of our comments and mock us.

So clearly there are going to be people who make all sorts of random subreddits related to women. Lets say some guys didn't like women with freckles. They might make a subreddit showing pictures of women with freckles and bash them. And drill down a few more levels and go in all directions.

Then you have these other people who get triggered by that sort of content and demand it all be removed from Reddit. They make subreddits like that demanding it all be removed. Historically, they need to get featured in a bunch of media before Reddit does anything. They then ban a bunch of them and make a new rule.

It's subs that target hatred and violence towards women. Things like social stalking, rape confessions, non-consensual pornography, secretly cumming on their belongings etc.