Free speech stands against the financial interests of social media. Reddit is the real estate for ads, and the best value for top global advertisers are safe spaces that are free of controversy. In the end, it's the advertisers that decide what is allowed to be published there.
Unless you’re willing to pay for it you can’t have social media that isn’t a real estate for ads or at least some sort of commercial interest.
Arguably even HN despite being technically a pro-bono side project serves the commercial interest of YC (and possibly others) if it didn’t and especially if it would have a negative impact on them it wouldn’t be around.
And HN is a very niche social media (if you can even call it that) with strict rules.
Anything with wider appeal has to be monetized.
The only monetization we have for the Internet is attention/value extraction from the user base.
HN is heavily moderated with strict posting rules, as far as "safe space"... Eh as long as you maintain a level of respectful discourse I never found that you can't comment on social or political issues due to fear of Dang or any other mod (I'm not sure how many are there) interfering in the discussion.
The community itself is another issue but even that isn't as clear cut as it seems if you look at any of the more political topics that are being posted.
In general HN isn't the place you go to discuss politics, social issues or current events some posts are allowed when it's in the public's interest or they are relevant to the wider tech industry but that's about it.
I always turn on "Show Dead" and on controversial topics, go to the bottom first.
This thread (along with all COVID threads) are weighted to sink very quickly. So you won't see them often, but when you do, there's a treasure of diversity of information and viewpoints. The best threads are the ones that start with a greyed out comment.
I have no doubt their investors play a role as well. Though some argue the Tencent investment is good for Reddit [0], I can't help but wonder what the nudging looks like behind the scenes.
Having advertisers control online narrative is very worrying and an unintended consequence of Brand Safety. There is no financial reason for reddit or youtube to distribute content they can't monetise, especially if that content is popular.
The question is who should have this control in media? Traditional media had gatekeepers that allowed for extreme (but popular) opinions to be suppressed.
We've seen what it looks like when opinions form in a bubble online without oversight and spirals out of control in the real world. From conspiracy theories and extremism to doxxing the wrong person in mass murder.
We should be aware of the limitations around a model based entirely on unfettered free speech. Otherwise we are just ideologues trying to put out a fire with more fire.
>>it's the advertisers that decide what is allowed to be published there
1. How much would/should advertisers care about their "brand image"? Cancel Culture has taken the long history of corporate boycotts and connected it to a hair-trigger, with massively amplified effects compared to the per capita aggrieved consumers. The leverage that advertisers exert on publishers is a rational risk-avoidance policy in these times of massive outrage-induced revenue losses.
2. How much of the risk-aversion in advertising is related to demographic shifts in the personnel making up the advertising and public relations departments?
