22289d

> I'm not sure a single "framework" would work for everyone.

I guess you weren't lying because that is not what a web framework is.

If it works for just me, that's a web framework. The fact that there are so many web frameworks shows that none work for everyone.

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.

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.

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.

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

> 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.

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 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.

> 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.

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.

I addressed a very specific claim someone made - that they seek to maximize outrage. And that is all I addressed. I am not interested in broadening the scope and defending everything about every social media platform - as that's what this will turn into if I do not diligently keep the goalposts exactly where I set them.

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.

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.

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.

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.