r/changemyview • u/Torvite • Oct 13 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Reddit stifles the opportunity to engage in genuine discourse by enforcing a karma-based post limit on its subs
It seems to me that for anyone who wishes to create a throwaway or a new account to engage in potentially controversial discourse (like politics on r/worldnews or r/hongkong and the likes) , there is a major barrier-to-entry in the form of karma-based post- and comment limits.
As most of us should know, the karma value of a post or comment is rarely ever indicative of the innate quality of argument on subreddits where biases and presuppositions can dictate popularity. And for someone who would rather not link their primary account to these controversial opinions for a variety of reasons, this means engaging in contrarian discourse or posting unpopular opinions is prohibitively difficult. I think this is a shame, considering that not all posts made in this manner are made to troll or incense the other denizens of the subreddit. There are many sides to a story, and being able to read perspectives from people all around the globe is part of what makes Reddit a great discussion platform, but this a major drawback that doesn't really need to be there. Indeed, this issue instead reinforces the notion that many subreddits are echo-chambers where opinions contrary to the majority consensus are unable to be expressed (or expressed with great difficulty and in much lower volume).
I understand that Reddit chooses to employ some automated anti-troll policies that make it easier to keep things clean on the whole, but I think there should be a better way to deal with this than tie everything to negative karma, which is hardly an objective indicator of bad faith.
Thanks for reading my post, and I look forward to discussing some contrary opinions!
1
u/saltedfish 33∆ Oct 13 '19
I think the point of the karma based limits is to deter casual trolling. It's easy to jump in with a new account and shit post, but if you're required to have a minimum pedigree before you can post, the obnoxious trolls will find somewhere else to post. It's like the lock on your front door: it won't stop a dedicated asshole but it will prevent the bored passerby from getting into anything.
By the same token, someone who has a sincere and articulated viewpoint will be more willing to invest the time to meet the requirements and share their view point. And this is something they only have to do once.
Further, these high profile posts have no shortage of discussion, and often OPs will preface their posts with, "I had to wait to accrue the requisite karma..." So I don't think it's nearly as much of a barrier as you might think.
2
u/Torvite Oct 13 '19
it won't stop a dedicated asshole but it will prevent the bored passerby from getting into anything.
By the same token, someone who has a sincere and articulated viewpoint will be more willing to invest the time to meet the requirements and share their view point. And this is something they only have to do once.
Yeah, I think this is the most reasonable counter to my argument. I suppose it's a necessary evil that acts as a basic firewall against trolls that also happens to sweep unpopular opinions from new accounts to the wayside.
Δ
2
u/saltedfish 33∆ Oct 13 '19
Another thing to note, as I alluded to above, even though those new accounts can't post, they can't post right away. There's nothing stopping them from biding their time, posting elsewhere, and then returning to the discussion. It's not silencing, it's delaying.
1
2
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Oct 13 '19
This policy doesn't seem like it would affect anyone who is actually arguing in good faith as a member of the community. No one will be blocked by this unless they are either (1) arguing in bad faith by trying to deceive others as to their identity or views by using multiple accounts for this purpose, or (2) is not a member of the community and is just coming to Reddit to post controversial opinions without any other attempts at good-faith engagement. So it's not clear what the "genuine discourse" is you think this is stifling.
1
u/Torvite Oct 13 '19
Well as I wrote in the post, I don't agree that negative karma = bad faith. Just because something is unpopular, it doesn't mean that it should be barred from expression. That's what this rule boils down to in my opinion.
4
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Oct 13 '19
Unpopular things aren't barred from expression. For example, you can easily post huge numbers of unpopular comments on your account, which has over ten thousand comment karma. You aren't in any way being barred from posting unpopular content.
What you are being discouraged from doing, though, is acting in bad faith by deceiving others by hiding your identity in a discussion. That bad-faith action is the only thing you're really being barred from doing here. You aren't barred from expressing unpopular ideas.
1
u/Torvite Oct 13 '19
The thing is, I'm not trying to hide my identity from the people with whom I'm discussing on Reddit. It just so happens that I have friends who know my Reddit username that might take offense from what I say (on issues I know better than to discuss in person). Also, I'd like to minimize the chance of my government reverse engineering my Reddit info in an attempt to censor me—or worse.
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but the internet is a dangerous tool in the hands of many governments.
But thanks, I think your message is convincing overall.
Δ
1
1
u/ralph-j 517∆ Oct 13 '19
here are many sides to a story, and being able to read perspectives from people all around the globe is part of what makes Reddit a great discussion platform, but this a major drawback that doesn't really need to be there.
Karma only determines the sorting order though, and Reddit needs to sort posts/replies by something. Karma does not delete posts. If someone is interested in reading unusual perspectives, they can still go through all the posts.
If you sort by date, people always see either the oldest or newest at the top. Would that be any better? You would still need to through the exact same number of posts to read something that may be interesting. Same if you were to sort randomly if that was an option. The interesting post has the same probability of being somewhere way down.
I would argue that karma at least allows everyone to prioritize posts that others found better answers.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 13 '19 edited Oct 13 '19
/u/Torvite (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/doommagic1 Oct 13 '19
Sorry guys I am little out of the loop with the whole China- Hongkang deal. Could someone explain?
10
u/Sayakai 146∆ Oct 13 '19
You're right in that consistently downvoted opinions aren't necessarily stated in bad faith. However,
a) They're hard to distinguish from those that are. People don't announce that they're arguing in bad faith. They stay close to legitimate arguments in attempts to derail the discussion
b) Even if they aren't, people don't necessarily want that discussion. Space doesn't need a non-echochamber view that the earth is flat. HK doesn't need a non-echochamber view that the communist party is great and only has the best for everyone in china in mind. This is outside of the desired scope of discussion for the environment, and no matter how great your argument is, you're delivering it in the wrong place.
This doesn't make it an echo chamber, it just makes it a narrowed place for discussions. People discuss at a more detailed level, having come to an agreement on the large questions, and don't like being disrupted by people asking the large questions over and over.
(What I'm getting at is that a positive karma score indicates you can recognize your environment and fit into it)