Reddit has stopped working for millions of users around the world.
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/reddit-down-subreddits-protest-not-working-b2356013.html
The mass outage comes amid a major boycott from thousands of the site’s administrators, who are protessting new changes to the platform.
On 12 June, popular sub-Reddits like r/videos and r/bestof went dark in retaliation to proposed API (Application Programming Interface) charges for third-party app developers.
Among the apps impacted by the new pricing is popular iOS app Apollo, which announced last week that it was unable to afford the new costs and would be shutting down.
Apollo CEO Christian Selig claimed that Reddit would charge up to $20 million per year in order to operate, prompting the mass protest from Reddit communities.
In a Q&A session on Reddit on Friday, the site’s CEO Steve Huffman defended the new pricing.
“Some apps such as Apollo, Reddit is Fun, and Sync have decided this pricing doesn’t work for their businesses and will close before pricing goes into effect,” said Mr Huffman, who goes by the Reddit username u/spez.
“For the other apps, we will continue talking. We acknowledge that the timeline we gave was tight; we are happy to engage with folks who want to work with us.”
In response to the latest outage, one Reddit user wrote on Twitter: “Spez, YOU broke Reddit.”
Website health monitor DownDetector registered more than 7,000 outage reports for Reddit on Monday.
Some users were greeted with the message: “Something went wrong. Just don’t panic.”
Others received an error warning that stated: “Our CDN [content delivery network] was unable to reach our servers.”
Update: Seems to be resolved for most users
This is why I'm hoping Lemmy can resist against some of the Reddit-specific culture that I think would dampen the experience here. Animosity towards emojis, creating echo-chamber communities/subreddits, the air of smug self-righteousness, discussion as something one can 'win' etc.
Redditors in general aren't bad, but a lot of vocal users had it in their heads that they were somehow better than people who used other platforms, and staked lines to maintain that cultural divide. Some of them concluded they were better than other redditors; turning communities into Us vs Them tribalism, until they would fracture into r/subreddit and r/truesubreddit.
Lemmy is not Reddit. It had a culture and it had users before the API shuffle; it's an opportunity to start fresh. It's not appropriate to expect Lemmy turn into Reddit, with all the unpleasantness that entails, and at the expense of the lemmings that were already here.
I'm quite honest about it; I spent years on Reddit too. I'm a redditor. But being here on Lemmy has been such a wonderful breath of fresh air, the 'I disagree but I'll respectfully explain why' that Reddit was missing for years. I can feel how miserable modern Reddit is in comparison and I really hope we don't recreate it.
The thing you're describing about smugness is kind of an overarching problem with tech literate people in general. Reddit began with a large portion of the users being those tech folks. They were also libertarians. The federated system got its first big migration during Elon's initial takeover of Twitter. That drove a certain left-wing element here early on, which hopefully helps establish the culture going forward.
The other thing is that it's inevitable with any community that a critical mass of shit happens. The bots, the cyber soldiers, the propaganda, the spam and the sex workers show up at a certain threshold. Whether the fediverse can effectively manage that remains to be seen.
I'm curious about it, yes. I think it's easy for older users to claim their version was somehow 'superior' but all humans have their own perspective; it's when we cease sharing those perspectives as respectful equals that I think we lose something.
To clarify I don't equate being smug with being knowledgeable. I know people can struggle with feeling self-conscious in that respect and feel that they are somehow being judged if somebody talks about information as though they 'should' know it, and that's not what I'm talking about.
No, I'm talking about when the discussion of ideas stops being about shared perspectives, and starts being about winning. When you don't share knowledge because you love learning and want to share what you've learned, but because knowledge gives you status over the person you're 'teaching'.
So many questions that aren't asked for fear we'd 'look dumb', so many ideas resistant to new evidence for fear we'd seem foolish, discussions not had because 'they'll assume I think they're stupid'.
Learning is so wonderful! There's so much to learn, a human is not capable of learning everything. There should never be shame in somebody knowing something you don't know, and therefore there should never be superiority in sharing something you do know!
I celebrate a system that includes specialised people sharing their specialisations. My interest is in sociology and psychology; but I know very little about gardening or machinery for example, I would enjoy a person in those fields to share what they know about them.
This in particular has become a pretty important idea to me recently. To add on, I think that the more you learn the more you realize how much there is to know, and the more comfortable you get with the idea that knowing it all is just impossible. I think that late high school / early undergrad I was a bit of a smug ass about some things, really thought I knew everything (even though I would have told you I didn't). I'm a year out from finishing a PhD now and never have I been more aware of how limited my perspective is.
Relatedly, I think, I used to avoid asking questions in classes because I didn't want to look foolish if I asked an "obvious" question. Now I'm happy to risk looking a little silly by asking something basic, because I know how absolutely full of gaps my knowledge is anyway. I've definitely asked some silly questions recently, including one where I'm pretty sure my PI would have been within her rights to respond with something like, "You should really know this by now," but hey! Now I do know!
You know, as a person who has never been in a "true" subreddit or a cj sub or a meme sub, I really do not mind those who wish to be so. They are doing their own thing. They have their own norms and expectations and that is where they go to be comfortable. So what?
And do you really think100% of those people literally only went to those subs and never contributed anywhere else? Nah, they were on the needlework sub posting their stitches or posting pictures of clouds or whatever.
We do not all have to be in one big group... I do not understand this fantasy. It is really OK to have different venues for different ideas and ways of being; that is one of the magics of online life in fact. It is possible to have little weird niches, even of smugness. One of the joys in life, which is dripping from the above comment and countless others I have been reading here. :D
Let me share with you what I'm thinking of when I talk about 'true' subs, as I understand it's a broad statement. I can offer a perspective that is more nuanced, if longer to read. I'll bold the key statements.
I understand that when subs get large enough, groupthink emerges; people voting up/down not based on whether a comment contributes meaningfully, but whether or not they agree or feel good about it. Thus even constructive minority voices are drowned out.
The reason the splintered subs could be a problem is that it often left the disruptive people to represent entire ideas, for better or for worse. It fractures movements that should otherwise have common goals into smaller and smaller slices that are unwilling to co-operate towards otherwise shared goals.
The one that comes to mind for me is r/childfree. It started out as a resource for those who'd chosen a child-free life to find support, collate a list of recommended doctors that recognised body autonomy (its often very difficult to get sterilised, especially if you're younger and/or don't already have several children), how the workforce treated them differently for being child-free (such as expecting them to cancel their plans and sacrifice their time off for parents on short notice), impact on their social lives, etc.'
However, over time it stopped being pro childfree lifestyle choices, and support for a group that is often seen as 'selfish'; and started becoming anti child lifestyle choices. The frontpage became mostly rants, filled with terms like 'crotchfruit', 'breeder', etc. What was once a community of a minority lifestyle trying to find support and legitimacy gave way to anger and tribalism.
Eventually enough of the users that consider choosing to have children to be an equally valid lifestyle choice - merely one they'd chosen not to live - slowly started lurking, unsubbing, or otherwise becoming invisible. Anti-child/'breeder' rhetoric became more and more prevalent. Eventually, r/truechildfree was founded to do what r/childfree used to - collate resources and support for those who have chosen a child-free life in a world where children are considered 'opt out'. Thus childfree users split into pro-child and anti-child tribes.
Which is lovely for r/truechildfree and its users (I am child-free, but I like children; I just recognise I am not equipped to raise them). But it meant that the largest and most visible sub, r/childfree, became almost only child-haters, and an already maligned community often considered 'selfish' is now represented by absolutists that are no longer willing to respect people who disagree.
I understand that it is the nature of humanity, once pushed, to push back. I understand why those who see mistreatment in the workplace or socially for their choice to be child free would be upset, same as anything we hold close to our hearts. That pain is why the r/childfree support group came to exist in the first place.
But it is diversity of opinion that makes discussion so interesting, that allows us opportunity for growth, that has us looking at the ways we are similar instead of fighting over the ways we are different.
I think the anger of those in the new r/childfree is real, valid, legitimate.
I think the users of r/truechildfree's discomfort with how that anger was displayed is also real, valid, legitimate.
I wish we'd looked for a better way to handle it than for letting communities devolve into absolutism, though. Whatever your reasons for not choosing to have children, you still deal with the same stigma; it's a shame to have people who are struggling against the same chains to schism over the metal they're made of.
What you're describing is polarization within a community transforming it into an echo chamber, driving out much of the community. Sure, truechildfree formed out of people who still wanted a community based around that aspect of themselves, but they're not the reason for the split - they're a symptom. For every user that made the journey to truechildfree, there's probably 3-10 that just unsubbed, and another 5 that just stopped participating
My personal example is AITA. It started off as a group judgement based on the morality of the situation, but in the last few years people have become obsessed with "rights". I actually got tempbanned for a situation where a douche told a woman that by joining trivia night in a small town bar she was ruining guys night. I responded to someone saying "IDK why your bf wasn't happy about how you handled it", and I basically said "yeah, he's the asshole, but clearly this is extremely important to him, and saying screw you I have every right to be here while he storms out didn't just ruin his night, it soured the evening for his friends who tried to stop him. That's not going to make you any friends in your new town, and a little compassion could've diffused the situation". It's hard to put into words (and that's just the most salient example, I probably got more negative karma there than everywhere else put together), but the community moved from what's the right thing to do into what's your legal rights
As far as I know, there's no trueAITA - the community just morphed into something I find toxic. The nuance was gone, and it became something very different to the sub I loved participating in. I almost unsubbed, but instead I mostly just would start writing a comment before deleting it and moving on.
I think fractured, smaller communities help with this more than anything. Humans generally adjust their morality based on their peers - and the bigger the community, the more the loudest voices begin to feel like they're expressing the opinion of the majority.
If 10% of a large community upvotes a certain viewpoint, it takes all of the top slots. It's a weakness of the popularity-based ranking system - a relatively small voting block easily dominates the discussion. The moderates just ignore it, because they disagree but not enough to actually fight it out
But force people together in a smaller, more diverse group, and they moderate each other. The trick is, you can't do it through polarization - you can't fragment a community based on beliefs or you get echo chambers.
You just have to throw people together and make them talk it out. Opinions naturally balance towards the mean when the groups are smaller, and the most cohesive voices dominate when the group becomes large
Thanks for sharing your perspective with me, I really enjoyed reading it!
You raised an interesting point, the polarising of r/AITA, and its something I've noticed a few times... I now have a theory:
Personal experiences are far more likely to move towards emotional extremes.
Emotionally-invested people reach points of 'black and white morality' as they get larger, labelled as moral or immoral based on each viewer's personal perspective.
I'm not saying our emotions are bad - if anything, many people are martyrs from their own emotional neglect - rather that many of us have not learned how to feel emotion authentically without treating them as objective judgements that justify action. (eg: this happened, I feel angry, therefore you wronged me, therefore I can defend myself, etc)
Humans are empathetic, which is truly wonderful. But we have two types of empathy:
So, back to your example of r/AITA - the NAH and ESH ratings are likely only being used by those engaging with cognitive empathy, (hopefully) recognising possible biases and advocating for communication that will satisfy both, as if they are a third party observing.
But for those who engage with their affective empathy, they project themselves into the story - if the story is evocative, they'll readily side with OP. If the other's experience angers them, they'll readily call them out. They're not here to offer perspective - only judgement.
So what does that mean for communities that want to prevent polarisation?
Haha, fuck if I know, I mostly just find the topic interesting and enjoy having a space to explore it. But I have a couple ideas, and would be curious to hear yours?
On Reddit, we see this black/white emotional judgement in upvotes/downvotes - though they are intended for whether a comment contributes something, they're often used to define whether a comment is moral according to the voter's values. Without downvotes, a comment that is bigoted can still be blocked/reported; but with them, a comment that says I think Witcher 3 is boring because- can be buried.
r/AITA also encourages a degree of absolutism by boiling down rulings to three letters, and groupthink by drawing an ultimate conclusion based on which one is most popular rather than presenting a table graph. Users can feel just and righteous - standing up for victim OP, or standing up for their victim.
So I don't know if the problem is preventable, it's a humanities issue; but I would consider some of the following:
Also, for those of you who read to the end, I really appreciate it. I know I ramble about stuff I find interesting, and despite editing out a bunch of waffle I know this is still really long. Would enjoy reading your equally long responses lol
Well first off, I like to write essays too, and I really have been enjoying the fact people here are way more willing to engage in longer posts.
I think you're into something with how humans empathize (kind of interesting to me my first response when someone tells me about an conflict is to try to reconstruct the other person's perspective). I think there's definitely a lot to the way people think less critically the more emotional they get
But to round it all off, smaller communities help, but really it's a matter of self-reinforcing social structures and the ways that social network mechanisms interact with them.
Outrage is the strongest driver for participation - so posts that incite the most outrage will get far more votes and replies in either direction. The outraged position will be far more likely to vote, while people who don't feel as strongly are less likely to do so to the same extent. That skews the metrics most algorithms use to rank them, and so they get more visibility.
As this goes on, the group will shift - the outraged people only need to be a fraction of the group to seem like they're the majority, and people put off by it are more than likely going to leave what looks like a total echo chamber (especially if people get nasty or personal)
The outraged group also starts to feel like their position is actually the average of the group (e.g. the silent majority), and they might shift even further, becoming more extreme - as people's beliefs are relative to their perception of social norms.
This cycle repeats until it becomes so polarized a moderate opinion is seen as extreme, and might be attacked.
It's a difficult problem to solve - the only easy metrics are going to be votes, comments, and maybe if people stay or leave after viewing. There's more complex systems that might work - such as using ai to score additional metrics based on content, or (an idea bouncing around in the back of my head for a while) by profiling the users to try to boost consensus opinions to compete with "outrageous" ones. Obviously, this is way more computationally expensive and requires complex code that few will be in a position to understand (even if it were open source). These strategies could also be used to drive engagement or ad conversation at the expense of mental health (something that seems to be at least explored by some social media companies)
But small groups help in a very simple way -only so much media fits on a page. Even if the top comments are pure outrage porn, the other voices won't be buried
The other solution is moderation (it's in the name) - effective moderation of the tone and "rules of engagement" can tamp things down. But people generally don't like to be censored, and it doesn't scale - moderators are individuals, and too much to go through or dividing it up between larger groups of mods strips the nuance out of the process
Having mega-sites and mega-communities creates not a sense of community but a sense of knowledge.
There's just SO much content that the good stuff just rises to the top eventually.
I also think the abundance of content is a part of the issue, but with no clear solution. People are bombarded with a thousand stories about a thousand different things going on in their country, the world, their city, etc... But we know that Humans can only reasonably maintain around 150-200 close personal relationships max that you would be able to converse with and empathize with and what not, Dunbars number. I think this is part of the problem why people see everything in black and white imo, there's an abundance of information out there and our society currently is in a state where everyone has to have an opinion on every conceivable subject but that's just not feasible. And when there's so much information to parse through humans tend to group things together as we love our patterns. So if you believe an idea from this group of people, you must believe the 100 other possible interpretations of correlated subjects and what not, or at least that's how people tend to view others expressing certain viewpoints. I struggle with this and people who espouse hateful ideas and disinformation against Trans people, a lot of people may not know any better or believe that there's this widespread push to transition people as young as possible which just isn't the case. It's something I find hard to extend grace on, it feels morally wrong to prevent people from making informed decisions between themselves and their healthcare specialist and besides that it is such a tiny portion of the population to be focusing on when there are much bigger widespread issues that affect us all. But its also something I feel is fueled a bit by this same issue we are discussing, I'm honestly not sure how you would work against this besides smaller and more tight-knit communities but then you have echo chambers, not that it wasn't a problem in some subreddits as well. Very interesting thing to think about! Love hearing everyones thoughts!
I'm with you mate. The whole of Lemmy feels like being on one of those super small, niche subreddits where everyone was kind and thoughtful.
The bigger Lemmy gets, the less we'll all like it.
I can't freaking stand emojis. But it's kind of like being pissed at corruption, overpopulation, or the weather. Not much I can do about it. I just run a
replaceadd-on in firefox to replace emojis with the words, or just delete the ones I've never found any info at all in their use.That seems like a good idea for users in your situation. What do you choose to replace them with? Are they simply removed, text-descriptions...? Do you know why you dislike emojis (I'm curious!), or is it simply something to you know to be true of yourself?
I personally like them as tone indicators, because so little of communication is technically the words we say (~4%). I know my writing looks quite formal and so it's easy for people to think I'm 'cold' or unapproachable; I don't know how to make it read more casually while still being accurate. But I can put little emojis next to some of the sentences if it helps 👍
It's 100% my issue. I'm just a grumpy old fuck. And yes, I just replace them with text or just delete them.
But I would never think of bitching to someone about using them. I'm the one with the problem. Seems like people these days really want to control how others think/feel, and I learned a long, long time ago to separate me problems from real problems. Or to consciously attempt to do so, at least.
How do you draw the line on those problems?
I find it hard to know when something is irrationally bothering me vs an actual problem.
Emoji seems clear cut, but interpersonal issues fall into a huge grey area. My tendency is to cut people out, which isn't going so well.
Oh man, I have that issue with people as well. The older I get, the smaller my circle of friends becomes. Definitely not healthy, but at the same time it's healthy for me. I just recognize that something is bugging me, think about if it bugs me enough to do something about, then figure out if I can actually do something about it. We joke in my family that there is something wrong with the male side of the family. Just a bunch of hermits going back generations. It's amazing that the family tree has continued at this point.
That's interesting, I think that's why I started using them occasionally, especially at work. I can definitely come across as very serious, and remote work only made that worse. A little emoji goes a long way 🤣
I generally dislike them, but do you really see them enough to bother? My dad texts them to me sometimes, but in general I rarely see them (outside of tongue in cheek usages, like mojo using 🔥 as a file extension)
I've been trying to use emojis regularly on here, mainly because I found the animosity weirdly exclusionary over on Reddit. My philosophy is to let others have their joy in small things. 😁