I've been using Reddit for 12 years. After the API fiasco, the quality dropped a lot. Most popular subreddits are now astroturfed, where every week there is a crusade against something (First it was for banning Twitter, now it is against banning AI Art).
Even in regular posts, Reddit has been a hive mind lately. If you scroll through the comments, most of them will have the same opinion over and over, with comments that add nothing to the discussion, like "I agree," getting hundreds of upvotes.
I agree, the API change was the last nail in the coffin, honestly. Reddit was always bad for several reasons, but it always had some availability of smart people that placed it alongside StackExchange and Hacker News. But 2022 and 2023 really saw a mass exodus of expertise from Reddit (and Twitter, etc.)
My account on Reddit, and so as I was the founder also the sub r/AmazonRedshift, was in Sep 2023 banned by an automated system.
The sub was working normally, I posted about the Amazon Redshift Serverless PDF, and then Reddit began behaving oddly.
After some investigation, and some guesswork, I concluded my account had been silently shadow-banned, and the sub banned (and then shortly after, deleted).
Two years of posts and the sub disappeared, instantly, abruptly, without warning, reason, appeal process or notification, and Reddit was trying by shadowbanning to lead me into thinking my account was still active.
I used a utility to scramble (you can't delete) all the posts I'd ever made to Reddit, and closed my account.
(There's a bit of a happy ending - about a year later someone who was doing work with Reddit and had an archive of all my poss sent them to me, as a thank you. I processed the JSON and put them up on my Redshift site.)
I like how you both responded to GP's roast of "I agree" comments by saying "I agree". Maybe that was intentional.
Anyway, I agree. I used Reddit fairly regularly before the API change, though I was already starting to get disenfranchised by the political hive mind by that point. The death of FOSS third party clients that made the platform bearable to use was the straw that broke the camel's back, for me. I've completely left it behind since.
First major presidential campaign astroturfing on a social media site. If you looked at Reddit (I dont remember what year it was, 2008? 2012?) you'd think 60% of America was dead set on the guy. It was less than 1%.
> I've been using Reddit for 12 years. After the API fiasco, the quality dropped a lot. Most popular subreddits are now astroturfed, where every week there is a crusade against something (First it was for banning Twitter, now it is against banning AI Art).
This didn’t start with the API change drama. The API change protests were their own crusade. The calls to ban Twitter links or AI art are just the next iterations of the same form of protest.
Many of the big subs were thoroughly astroturfed long before the API changes. The famous ones like /r/conservative weren’t even trying to hide the fact that they curated every member and post
The proximate cause IMO is that the protests (ie. moderators shutting down their subreddits) resulted in some moderators being deposed, causing new subreddits and moderators to come in power, which were easier to astroturf or whatever.
Happy to see posts like this, I have the same experience. It fell apart a few years ago with the fiasco's and it's a shell of what it was now. Total echo chamber. Sadly seems to be spreading to HN in some comment sections. And X has it's problems in the other direction. There aren't many places left like how it was, when up and down votes meant something.
> Reddit has been a hive mind lately. If you scroll through the comments, most of them will have the same opinion over and over, with comments that add nothing to the discussion, like "I agree," getting hundreds of upvotes.
That has been the case for over 10 years now. It's absolutely not a new phenomenon.
I feel so old that I remember the post-2016 election when Reddit started down this path. It's been particularly bad in the last few years but agree. Ever since the_donald and the admin's reactions to it, it's been bad.
Gatekeeping the definition of art probably doesn't help your cause. Even if you convince everyone to say, I don't know, "algorithmically generated images" instead, have you really improved the situation from the artists perspective?
The only thing that matters is ridiculing people who think typing something into a text entry field and receiving a shitty image in return is art.
edit: now that I think about it, a public performance where an artist generates "algorithmically created images" in real-time and they and the audience bask in the shit would be fantastic! Maybe coupled with some shitty AI music, narrated in that shitty Attenborough rip-off AI voice.
Not just lately. See /r/politics. Sometime in the last 5-7 years /r/science or /r/technology (or both, I forget because I stopped reading) basically became the science/tech versions of /r/politics.
Lol dude reddit has been heavily manipulated since like 2013, if not earlier.
I was heavily involved in buying/selling spam accounts for years on reddit. If you think it wasn't heavily manipulated, at least the frontpage, then lol you were buying it like everyone else.
This is just practical given you can't see tweet threads (and sometimes even tweets) without an account.
> against banning AI Art
I think you mean to say reddit is pro-banning AI art?
Anyway, banning AI art is absolutely good for curating quality posts. AI art is incredibly low-effort, easily spammable, and has legitimate morality concerns among artist communities (the kind that post high quality content). Same goes for obviously AI-written posts.
I agree content quality on the site has fallen drastically, but those are both measures to try and save it.
For all the negative things one can say about X, their fact checking (community notes) has actually gotten pretty good, which is something Reddit has yet to implement. Pew has also been ranking them more politically center than most social media sites, although I suppose that's subjective
I like the community notes as a concept, but they're often a day late and a dollar short. By the time the community note appears the post has been squeezed of all of its juice and was already on the way out. It's better than nothing, but the entire mechanism runs slower than the speed of propaganda.
This. It's technically a solution but not a solution at all. It's like giving a calorie count AFTER someone's eaten a meal (or in this case after the tweet has been viewed by the majority of people that are going to view it).
They also don't seem to last. I don't know quite how it happens but you see a lot of these community notes disappear 24 hours after they appeared. They act on the tail end of the posts exposure and then are removed for the long term for when the news comes along and uses it as a reference. But all the people who spotted the misinformation see the post and the community note and so everyone walks away "happy".
Reddit has stickied posts at the top of each thread. Well-moderated subreddits use them to great effect. Badly moderated subreddits just shadowban everything that doesn’t match with the mods’ politics.
And Mark pushed it through for FB and IG, at the same time he wound down the Fact Check system (which only hit like 0.0001% of contentious posts). Liberals reacted very negatively to this change.
The most glaring example of this was how reddit did a total 180 before/after the election. Before the election questioning putting a candidate in without a primary was sacrilege. Afterwards it was a popularly supported reason for the loss. It was like watching an inflated balloon of propaganda deflate.
After the election, the amount of [Removed by Reddit] went from very little, to EVERYWHERE.
That's what did it for me, zero Reddit unless I can't find the information anywhere else, and even then it's for viewing a single post and then I'm gone.
In the few days following the election, there was a flood of conservative posters all over the place. After about a week, they all disappeared and Reddit returned to its usual politics. I think the difference you are seeing is an atypical amount of conservatism, not the other way around. Most people who voted for Harris still do not think that the lack of a primary was the issue.
Probably not, but as someone who didn't vote for either major party, nor am I a conservative, it was glaringly obvious that ramming through without lube someone who totally dive-bombed the prior primary might have avoided a sanity check to filter primary issues.
The strongest candidate for either party to field would be an incumbent President, especially one who has already beaten the other party's frontrunner. They have the advantage of celebrity, a record and the bully pulpit. The second strongest candidate would logically be an incumbent Vice President.
The Democratic Party may have been a shitshow but Harris was the best possible option once Biden was no longer in contention. And the margin between her and Trump turned out to be slim, so a Harris win wouldn't have been impossible.
Harris was pretty much the only option. The primary was already over and there were real questions on who could spend campaign funds with Biden's step down.
That said, I really blame her lose on her and the biden campaign more than anything. They chased hard for disaffected republican voters at the expense of the base. They failed to win those voters and lost some of their base voters.
Ive noticed very clearly a material change even on this site, where a comment with a conservative viewpoint would get downvoted into oblivion, and now I seem to see far more diversified opinions. Which is great, I want that.
That's bizarre. Putting her at the top of the ticket was very clearly the better of two bad options (it was too late for the better options, by the time the call was made).
There exist people who think Biden had a better shot and replacing him with Harris was a mistake? Did they not look at his approval ratings earlier that year, then look up what that's historically meant for presidential re-elections? Dude was gonna lose, and by the time of the replacement he was likely gonna get crushed. The replacement probably helped down-ballot races, given how badly Bien was likely to perform, so was a good idea even though she lost.
Like, yes, it was per se bad but people blaming that for the defeat is... confusing to me.
No I don't think people are saying Biden was the better option. At first, as I recall, people were fairly outraged that they were left with two bad options.
The general tone very quickly shifted to Kamala's brat summer, Kamala is bae type shit.
Even after the fact nobody was questioning Kamala's qualifications. Why, at the 11th hour, were we left with demented grandpa and someone that couldn't win a primary the first time? Whose fault was this? What consequence did they suffer?
The dialogue was mostly around trying to figure out who to blame for people not voting for Kamala. Men? Black dudes? Mexicans? Misogynists? Anyone but whoever was actually responsible for the situation? Idk what it's like now though, I haven't used Reddit in months.
This slightly speaks to what subreddits a person reads, because I can tell you I had the exact opposite experience. People seemed still very pissed off about it.
Was just gonna say this. Reddit is dreadful. Anything remotely contentious has a single narrative, and if people try to present any alternative perspective, comments get locked. Disagreement = "hate".
Reddit is SO MUCH WORSE than most people understand. Ignoring for a moment that peoples frontpage Best sort uses engagement metrics rather than upvote/downvotes since 2021, the moderators there have an iron grip over what is allowed.
r/redditminusmods used to track this. Every 12 hours they'd take a snapshot of the top 50 posts and then check ones from the previous 12 hour snapshot to see what percentage had been deleted. When it started, it was averaging 20% or so. By the end, it was at 50/50 or 49/50 deleted almost every single 12 hour period.
Of course, reddit couldn't allow this level of scrutiny, so they banned that subreddit for unstated reasons, and now the only good google result for it actually leads back here. See for yourself how bad it was: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36040282
That only goes to two years ago. It feels like it's gotten even worse since then. That's not even going into some subreddits (worldnews, politics, etc.) creating the illusion of consensus by banning anyone with an opinion outside of a narrow range of allowed ones.
> r/redditminusmods used to track this. Every 12 hours they'd take a snapshot of the top 50 posts and then check ones from the previous 12 hour snapshot to see what percentage had been deleted. When it started, it was averaging 20% or so. By the end, it was at 50/50 or 49/50 deleted almost every single 12 hour period.
Is this "mods run amok" or is it the bots gaming the algorithm more effectively and now account for nearly half of all new popular content?
In general my advice to anyone considering Reddit is to start with the default list of subreddits that you get when not logged in. Delete all of those from your list, and track down the small subreddits that interest you. The defaults are all owned by professional influence peddlers now, and what little actual content seeps through is not worth the effort to filter out.
In the past I would spot check them and there were plenty of submissions that were neither bot submitted nor obviously rule breaking that were deleted. My best guess was that mods of sufficiently large subreddits just like to shape the content that's shown. In most places, there seems to neither be the power user nepotism of late-era Digg nor the Eastern Germany level narrative censorship of subs like worldnews. Rather it just seems like a ton of cooks in the kitchen (huge modlists) with some of the mods seeming to just take action for action's sake. Either way the point is that users aren't really dictating the content.
Don't even get me started about local city subreddit busybody moderators with their online fiefdoms and their "Daily Discussion" post graveyards.
This would be such an interesting experiment to perform on other social platforms as well alongside some rough semantic analysis to understand which topics are being silenced.
I already got quite a lot of the data pipeline setup for this, so if anyone wants to collab hit me up!
The smaller niche subreddits dedicated to a hobby or type of product are actually some of the worst for astroturfing from what I've seen. It only takes a few shills to start building consensus.
There's a really interesting pattern where you'll see one person start a thread asking "Hey, any recs for durable travel pants?" Then a second comment chimes in "No specific brands, just make sure you get ones that have qualities x, y, and z". Then a third user says "Oh my Ketl Mountain™ travel pants have those exact traits!" Taken on their own the threads look fairly legit and get a lot of engagement and upvotes from organic users (maybe after some bot upvoted to prime the pump)
Then if you dump the comments of those users and track what subreddits they've interacted on, they've had convos following the same patterns about boots in BuyItForLife, Bidets in r/Bidets, GaN USB chargers in USBCHardware, face wash in r/30PlusSkincare, headphones, etc. You can build a whole graph of shilling accounts pushing a handful of products.
The worst part is that in a lot of niche communities knowing the "best" brand for a given activity then becomes a shibboleth, so it really only takes a few strategic instances of planting these seed crystals for the group opinion to be completely captured, and reinforced with minimal intervention.
How is that not treated as fraud? As you pointed out, with a little bit of detective work (which is well beyond the means and motivation of a casual internet user, but well within reach of a consumer protection agency) it's fairly easy to expose these manipulative tactics. Commercial communication ought to be clearly labelled as such.
Because the cyberspace was lawless for far too long. Justice systems worldwide were too ill-equipped to handle anything involving computers logically, effectively nullifying broad ranges of laws.
b) The tricky part is probably proving a business relationship. Otherwise someone could be a jerk and start shilling for their competitors just to get them fined.
It's great for web searches for answers to very specific questions. "search term" + "reddit" typically gives me a good starting point if not the answer itself to the odd question I have.
It’s clear they know outright removal of it would kill off a portion of the user base, so they’ll just kill it piecemeal - starting with the old messages system and forcing people into the newer chat system.
Manufactured consensus is literally the name of the game for the big news networks. News is/was paid vast sums by the government to tell a certain story. That is Manufactured Consensus. Some countries do a better job making the news seem like a separate arm from the government. The entire point is to direct the populace. That is not the core focus of X, even though it is entirely susceptible to it, and will be encountered on any such platform. yes Reddit is horrible, but I would say Wikipedia is even more dangerous because it presents as basic facts. Reddit at least you know it's some obscene username giving geopolitical strategy rants.
Important to note, I first saw this specific chart and claim of Musk's heavy handed influence via X. Also, I see plenty of dissenting opinions (in a general sense on Trump, Tariffs, Musk, DOGE, etc) on X. Alternative views definitely have reach.
Also important to note, my posts, where I am very knowledgeable in my domain and will spend an unreasonable amount of time authoring posts to make various points, will garner mere double digit views, so when someone cries about no longer have millions of views for their uneducated hot takes... spare the tears.
Outside of PBS, do you have evidence for this claim: "News is/was paid vast sums by the government to tell a certain story"?
> Alternative views definitely have reach.
Yes, but are we in a 1984 situation where that reach is managed behind the scenes. Reach, but perhaps not too much reach. With respect to the chart, how do we know that Twitter users are not largely partitioned? How representative is the fact you saw something compared to other "communities" on X?
All the while, even if you saw a 'dissenting' chart, the fact the chart exists is direct evidence to the power of a subtle shadow-ban effect. It's not about tears and whining, it's that a single act by 'powerful' accounts can control who gets visibility, and who does not. The point is that it is not you, the community that controls what is popular, but it is the powerful accounts that do. That is the issue.
> Outside of PBS, do you have evidence for this claim: "News is/was paid vast sums by the government to tell a certain story"?
Yeah, they wouldn't have to rely so much on Madison Avenue if they were just paying the news agencies to report whatever they want.
Incidentally, I'm not sure I'd characterize even PBS' government funding as "vast sums", either absolutely or relatively (to the rest of their funding).
How much influence do you imagine PBS wields and how much money do you suppose is in these vast sums they are paid?
PBS is mostly known for Sesame Street and nature documentaries. Their government funding has been whittled down to almost nothing over years of relentless attack from the Republicans.
Here's some discussion from PBS itself on the topic:
"The U.S. is almost literally off the chart for how little we allocate towards our public media. At the federal level, it comes out to a little over $1.50 per person per year. Compare that to the Brits, who spend roughly $100 per person per year for the BBC. Northern European countries spend well over $100 per person per year."
I get and agree that 'super accounts' like Musk or Taylor Swift or Barack Obama can have an outsized impact that is too powerful.
Strongly argue that TODAY has far more diversity of thought being communicated on various media than 2024. Disagree on being "in 1984 situation," the whole "Biden is sharp as a tack" -> replaced without primary "Campaign of Joy" is as 1984 is you can get. Very clear evidence of syndication occurring across various news outlets, and those syndicated stories don't happen for free. The hard evidence you request is thoroughly concealed and hard to follow as it gets washed through non profits and NGOs. USASpending shows $2mm direct in 2024 to NYT as an example, but it's no stretch to assert indirect sources as well.
We are not on the same page. I was not referring to a 1984 situation in the sense that government now currently has control over all information and strictly controls it. If anything, we're more in a "Brave New World" situation than 1984.
I was referring to instead just a tactic used in 1984 where the dissenting opposition is controlled rather than suppressed. The dissent is allowed to exist, but it's in a controlled manner. I'm also only referring to within Twitter/X as well, not about US society.
> The hard evidence you request is thoroughly concealed and hard to follow as it gets washed through non profits and NGOs.
In contrast, 'soft' evidence sounds like the stuff of unsubstantiated claims - which is not evidence. So, we can probably just simply talk about evidence, the distinction of 'hard' vs 'soft' seems meaningless to me (soft evidence is simply not evidence). My question - how is someone to distinguish between evidence that is thoroughly concealed vs evidence that does not exist? If you can't distinguish between the two, then is it fair to say that evidence that was destroyed is simply no longer there? Can you show evidence of this destruction?
> USASpending shows $2mm direct in 2024 to NYT
Where can I see that?
Checking 'USASpending.gov", searching for 'recipients' and then NYT, it shows a total awarded amount of "$322,716" [1].
Though, giving you all of the benefit of the argument and let's say the $2mm direct is true. A quick google search shows annual 2024 revenue for NYT was $2.6B (which surprises me it is that much). $2mm is less than 0.1% of revenues. Seems like NYT would hardly miss it if it were gone.
> News is/was paid vast sums by the government to tell a certain story.
In the US it is not the government paying these sums, it is the billionaires who bought the media outlets. When you look for editorial bias in the US it's not pro-government, it's pro-wealth. Or more specifically pro-wealthy people.
> I would say Wikipedia is even more dangerous because it presents as basic facts.
Can you give some examples of political bias in Wikipedia articles?
I deleted my Reddit account years ago because of echo chamber effect and other people intentionally using that to direct opinion. In all fairness though there is an inherent narcissistic incentive to influence popular opinion irrespective of evidence or consequences. This will continue to be true so long as people rely upon social acceptance as a form of currency.
