Support NeoGAF

[Paltheos]

From a post a couple years back:

It's an interesting experiment but inferior to traditional forums as a form of social media imo. Theoretically the best posts should be the ones at the top of any reddit discussion but people can't really help themselves and will upvote anything snappy or they agree with and at worst downvote things they just don't like the sound of (I'm not factoring in whether they even think on it). Any large-scale subreddit can easily become a shitty echochamber as the system by its nature gradually excludes opposing and moderate positions (even well-thought out, moderate posts that don't offend a sub's prevailing sensibilities won't be *first* and won't benefit from the most eyeballs).

Traditional forums like GAF have the issue of good posts getting lost in the 'between pages' - anything not the first or current page - but this outcome is still preferable to reddit's as extreme positions have a harder time taking hold in the culture since any one post will have only so much visibility.

Also, anyone else get bothered when you open up a reddit topic on the front page with 1k+ responses and think, "What are these people doing? A thousand people posted in this topic. Your post is never going to be seen by anyone." I had a thought as I was typing up this post: What these people really want is a traditional forum; they just don't know it or don't see an alternative.

tldr There are pros and cons to traditional forums and reddit, but traditional is better imo.

 

[Dacvak]

Yes, it is as you say. Dissenting opinions are punished, majority opinions amplified, which results in self-reinforcing groupthink bubbles. Online communities are already susceptible to that so Reddit ends up being one of the worst offenders. Their super moderator system where a dozen or so people control thousands of subs also doesn't help.

When I worked there (up until about 2015), there was always a very strong effort internally and externally to establish that the upvote/downvote system should be used to evaluate the accuracy of a comment, and whether it added something to the conversation.

Not sure if it's still a part of the "reddiquette" (or even if that's still around), but we would explicitly state that voting should not be based off of whether or not you like/agree with the comment.

Of course, that was an uphill battle the site was always going to eventually lose. But there genuinely was a point where it was a high priority, and we really tried to instill that in the community.

Personally, I still find value in a lot of subreddits, specifically ones with very niche topics. But the large, broad ones are definitely the most susceptible to echo chambering. I see that everyday on /r/gaming, a subreddit I still manage.

I'm not sure if the algorithmic bubbling/echo chambering is worse on reddit, but by nature of how topics are organized and viewed, I certainly think it's more apparent, if that makes sense.

 

[EviLore]

When I worked there (up until about 2015), there was always a very strong effort internally and externally to establish that the upvote/downvote system should be used to evaluate the accuracy of a comment, and whether it added something to the conversation.

Not sure if it's still a part of the "reddiquette" (or even if that's still around), but we would explicitly state that voting should not be based off of whether or not you like/agree with the comment.

Of course, that was an uphill battle the site was always going to eventually lose. But there genuinely was a point where it was a high priority, and we really tried to instill that in the community.

Personally, I still find value in a lot of subreddits, specifically ones with very niche topics. But the large, broad ones are definitely the most susceptible to echo chambering. I see that everyday on /r/gaming, a subreddit I still manage.

I'm not sure if the algorithmic bubbling/echo chambering is worse on reddit, but by nature of how topics are organized and viewed, I certainly think it's more apparent, if that makes sense.

Thanks for the insight. Definitely a lot of useful subs on reddit still for niche topics.

 

[Fake]

For those that do not know it's a simple Thumbs Up/Down system that allows you to rate each comment. The ones with negative votes are hidden, those with more positive votes pushed towards the top of the discussion.

Does anyone find this flawed by design? That means the comments that are promoted and visible to others are the ones that the majority agrees with, which kills any discourse not shared by said majority. It's the very definition of a Internet opinion bubble.

Not only that. This type of stupid system discourages any healthy or critic discussions.

 

[poppabk]

When I worked there (up until about 2015), there was always a very strong effort internally and externally to establish that the upvote/downvote system should be used to evaluate the accuracy of a comment, and whether it added something to the conversation.

Not sure if it's still a part of the "reddiquette" (or even if that's still around), but we would explicitly state that voting should not be based off of whether or not you like/agree with the comment.

Of course, that was an uphill battle the site was always going to eventually lose. But there genuinely was a point where it was a high priority, and we really tried to instill that in the community.

Personally, I still find value in a lot of subreddits, specifically ones with very niche topics. But the large, broad ones are definitely the most susceptible to echo chambering. I see that everyday on /r/gaming, a subreddit I still manage.

I'm not sure if the algorithmic bubbling/echo chambering is worse on reddit, but by nature of how topics are organized and viewed, I certainly think it's more apparent, if that makes sense.

Let's face it, the only place anyone generally gives a shit about this is in when it comes to pushing their politics.
Look at the grokipedia thread - when evaluating a record spanning the entirety of human existence and knowledge the only thing people care about is if George Floyd is called a criminal or not.

 

[Dacvak]

Let's face it, the only place anyone generally gives a shit about this is in when it comes to pushing their politics.
Look at the grokipedia thread - when evaluating a record spanning the entirety of human existence and knowledge the only thing people care about is if George Floyd is called a criminal or not.

Over the last 8-10 years, I definitely feel like politics have not only divided people online (and in real life), but have ensured that specific platforms and communities end up leaning distinctly in one direction or the other, instead of staying closer to the center. I personally find this problematic, because I don't believe anything good ever comes from division and echo chambers, but it's not only the way that the internet algorithmically works, it's now a part of how we decide to societally engage online.

I'll use this forum as an example. I've been on GAF since around 2004 or so, and made this account back in 2008. I'm generally pretty politically-center on most things, but I tend to lean left overall. I know that's less common on this board, and sometimes it might even put me in an uncomfortable position. But I also genuinely believe that most people are good people, and even though I don't agree with some things others believe, I find the community here to be super chill, fun to talk to, and passionate about games. While I could find another online community that might closer match my personal political views, I think that'd be doing a disservice to myself and others, only ensuring that we sever our common connections, which I think are far deeper and more important than political views.

It sometimes feels like an uphill battle to try and find common ground with people you might have disagreements with, but I have to believe that it's worth the time and effort if we ever want a chance at healing the divide people are currently feeling.

 

[Avid Reading Horse]

Remember folks, Reddit is a place where some subreddits will auto-ban you for interacting with a wrong-think subreddit.

My (least) favorite "feature" of Reddit is that people can block you and then you can't see their comments anymore... What the fuck is that shit, should be the other way around no? But in practice the problem is... you can be absolutely obliterating someone in a thread... they can come back with a wall of text, block you, and you can no longer see or respond to said comment. So, it just looks like you tucked your tail and scurried off to any neutral observer. What a fucking scam! I guess you could make a burner account for the express purpose of getting a reply in, but I ain't about that life. So now Reddit will not be blessed with my effort posts, and shall only receive my lowest shitposts. Not the shitposts that GAF gets, as those are essentially art, and framed copies of few could probably fill that hole in the Louvre's collection. Naw fam, those shitters get the shitty shit posts.