An explanation of why the atheism reddit does not appear on the default front page.
Skip to the second half if you don't care about how we got to this point.
First, a little history: When we first allowed users to create their own reddits, every link from every reddit had an equal chance at being seen on our front page. We had to tweak this slightly with the rise in popularity of the nsfw reddit and put some reddits behind an "are you over 18?" barrier, a change that was welcomed by most users. Next, we allowed users to choose which reddits appear on their front page, but it wasn't until we started normalizing the front page that we ran into issues.
When the front page is normalized, a link that is #1 in a small reddit is basically equal in hotness to a link that is #1 in a large reddit. This helps prevent small reddits from being washed out by the larger ones. Because of this change we had to also limit the number of reddits that make up the front page, otherwise things would jump around wildly (a user could create a new reddit, submit one link, and since that link was #1 in its reddit, it could appear on the front page). For quite some time we maintained this list of front page reddits by hand.
Maintaining the list of front page reddits became tedious after a while, so we added a new algorithm to find the most active reddits automatically. This algorithm purposefully ignores the number of subscribers when choosing reddits since that number is so easy to game. The popularity of a reddit is based on the number of submissions, votes, and general level of activity of the reddit. The algorithm changes from time to time, and we don't describe it fully to mitigate gaming it. We use the top ten reddits returned by this algorithm to make up the default non-logged-in front page.
Here's the explanation part you're looking for
A couple of weeks ago the moviecritic reddit popped into the top ten reddits, causing quite a stir. The reddit isn't used for new and interesting links, but rather for links to movies: sometimes old and sometimes new. Users were upset that moviecritic was taking up front-page space and started attacking the reddit by downvoting everything in sight. Users of the atheism reddit had been under attacks like this for weeks. Unfortunately, attacking a reddit generates a lot of activity on that reddit and makes our algorithm think the reddit is more popular than it really is, making the problem even worse.
Seeing as this might become an ongoing problem, we added the ability to prevent certain reddits from appearing in the top ten. We flagged moviecritic and atheism as two such reddits, hopefully allowing these reddits to grow in peace. I should have posted this explanation then instead of waiting until now, and for that I apologize.
Given the nature and somtimes polarizing tone of the content on the atheism reddit, it will likely always garner the ire of many other users. Showcasing religious flame-wars only serves to lower the level of discourse on the site as a whole, and unknowingly walking into such a flame-war isn't the first-time experience we'd like new users to have here, which is why we think it best to leave things the way they are.
There are thousands of communities on reddit covering a wide range of topics. Most are for sharing new and interesting content from around the web, and others are strictly for discussion. We hope there is a place for everyone on reddit, and we also hope you realize not everything found on reddit is appropriate for the front page.
UPDATE: I'll try and rephrase a point that I didn't get across before. /moviecritic and /atheism aren't legitimate top ten reddits. They appeared that way because they were under attack, making them appear even more popular. Removing atheism from the top ten by hand isn't about censoring, it's about a shortcoming in our popularity metric. We'll fix the problem, and that'll be the end of it.
Posted Aug 26, 2009, 8:29 PM UTC · edited
I assume the politics reddit is similarly flagged then? Deep division, flamewars, ire garnering... same problems no? Or do these problems require special treatment when involving religious discussion?
Note: this change doesn't actually bother me... but the justification is a little weak if indeed r/politics isn't treated equally (maybe they don't make the front page anyways due to activity, I don't know).
That's where this argument fails. I'm barely ever at the politics subreddit, and yet, every day I see very polarizing, "divisive", angry articles and comics on the front page of Reddit, criticizing political groups, making ad hominem attacks, sparking massive flame wars in the comment sections, etc. (just giving a cut and dry explanation without supporting any side with this)
But I guess when you attack someone's superstition and irrational source of meaning in life, and also their vehicle of privilege over others in this world, it's going too far, eh?
reddit is supposed to be a site with user generated content. r/atheism is a user-generated subreddit, comprised of tens of thousands of users who like being subscribed r/atheism. reddit happens to have one of the largest, most active, and yes, most outspoken, atheist communities on the web. Many of us atheists have no church, and would never go door to door, but still care that non-atheists hear our arguments.
Spez is an admin, not just a user. Spez has made the value judgment that a particular SFW subredddit lowers the level of discourse of reddit, and amounts to little more than a flamewar showcase. Many redditors agree with spez, but this doesn't give spez the license to throw his weight around, while staying true to reddit's supposed fundamental principles. This is very different from pulling a single controversial post from the front page. And this is very different from excluding a reddit from the front page because of a particular algorithm. The controversy about moviecritic was a controversy about a particular algorithm that excessively promoted small subreddits.
Keeping r/atheism off the front page is a blatant attempt to shield new redditors from the views and opinions popular among redditors. On r/atheism, there's an unending the debate about whether it's better for our civilization's future to openly challenge religion, even when it offends believers. Reddit's current policy decides this debate undemocratically. Now, one of the Internet's largest intellectual communities has censored the votes of one of its largest user groups.
Edit: spez has indicated that this is an algorithm issue, and not a censorship issue. The status quo doesn't appear to be related to any policy change. So, it seems this controversy is over, provided we give the admins the time they need and deserve to change the algorithm.
Well put. Until now, Reddit has been the last fucking site I thought this would happen on.
Translation, IMO: Since most random, first time visitors are theists, presenting them with challenges to their belief system on an initial visit is bad for business.
OH FUCK! >>> http://www.intheworkplace.com/apps/articles/default.asp?articleid=30221&columnid=1935 <<<
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/9ehlw/ideas_for_brandingnaming_for_an_alternative_to/
/shameless plug
[deleted]
I would have guessed 4chan or something like that, but yeah, same idea.
I can hardly see a problem with this. Reddit has to pay bills, you know, and new users help pay those by providing new ad revenue. You can't keep new users if they see a bunch of mindless flames against religion on the front page.
Honestly I think this could be solved by encouraging the creation of an account before seeing any content, and not having a default list of reddits you get subscribed to automatically.
See, my translation was "Since the quality of discussion in the atheism subreddit tends to hover around ninth grade drivel, first time visitors, who've heard reddit is a bit more intellectual than many other sites might wonder what the fuck is going on."
I'm not saying it made the decision a correct one, but I'm saying the discussion in atheism was useless.
I think it's a little arrogant to assume that you would challenge their belief system. You can challenge their karma, as r/atheism always does to anyone who disagrees with anything (who gives a shit you guys?) but their belief system is their own.
And by the way, your translation is completely putting words in the admin's mouth. He gave a thoughtful, intelligent explanation that you didn't agree with, so now you are making pussy comments about how superior you are to everyone and shouldn't be [what: censored? Get a life SpikedIt] discriminated against.
But you know what? I think r/atheism should be on the front page. I initially removed it, since all of the "religious flame-wars" were so petty and intolerable at first, but now I visit occasionally just for the LOLs.
Cry more, go back to digg.
Then he should just have said that. Why talk about 'flamewars' and 'lowering the debate' if it's only an algorithm issue? And anyway, who is he to judge user-generated content? Being admin shouldn't grant him the right to be the philosophical shepherd of Reddit.
I agree, there was a whole lot of explanation of why r/atheism is unwanted on the front page to then turn around and try to say, "but that doesn't matter, the real reason is that our algorithm shouldn't have chosen it to begin with."
Yeah, I'm not buying it. r/atheism may or may not be a valid top 10 at any given time, but his reasons suggest that it will never be a top 10 because it might scare people away. That's not just an "algorithm" problem.
The good news is, at least they picked on one of the groups most capable at arguing their point.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Changing the algorithm seems to be serving its purpose.
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/9enb3/look_whos_gaining_from_nowhere_by_reddits_new/
And now those most upset about censoring atheist conversation will leave, and the direction reddit took today will continue.
Spot on. Wish this could have been posted a bit earlier in the discussion.
That's a very bold statement.
YYYEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH
how do you get your letters to bold?
[deleted]
I think the difference is that most of "politics" is current events, while the battles over gods vs. not gods or wrong gods are ancient and and never really go anywhere. So the atheism posts are often redundant and the reply posts tiresome copypasta. I have to think that since a current, actual religion v. atheism story would also be either political, or world news, the breaking stories that have an atheist angle would still appear on the front page.
Since he/she is the admin, yea it sorta does actually...
You obviously didn't read what spez said. Atheism is not legitimately in the top ten. Obviously though it always has to be Atheists vs. The World in any conflict like this, so you have to pretend you're being censored. I'm a literate atheist. You are just an atheist, obviously not the former.
I read what he said earlier in the day. But since then, he has given us an informative update:
Since reading this, I've taken down a critical post about the first part of his message. As far as I'm concerned now, the controversy is largely over. r/atheism is under attack, perhaps by bots, or perhaps just by lurking trolls. It appears that the admins are aware of the issue that such attacks should completely warrant exclusion from the top ten.
But if the attacks are from real individual users, I think that's good for r/atheism. Even if people downvote every atheist comment on the subreddit, at least they'll be aware of the arguments against embracing theism.
On r/atheism we get riled up when a single school bus gets censored in a podunk town. We are a subcommunity within reddit that doesn't want to be treated differently than other subcommunities, even in a line of code. But, if an admin reads this, I extend my apology, because in the end, a line of code was the reason for all of this fuss.
There is a huge difference between "challenging" religion and just bashing it. When I started reading reddit a few years ago the atheist topics tended to be more on the "challenging" side, now it seems to be mostly "bashing".
This depends on your meaning of "bashing" a religion. If by "bashing", you mean ridiculing a religion, r/atheism is guilty. Ridicule isn't normally considered a fair standard of debate. But if you're in a competitive debate, and one side's only argument is:
"All of my beliefs are true because all of my beliefs are true..." that is also not a fair standard of debate.
If one side insists on using circular reasoning to win the argument, the only recourse for the other side is to jump on the weakest link of the circle and point out its absurdity. In this sense, atheists have no recourse but to ridicule the dogma of theists: To point on the numerous acts of genocide of women and children in the old testament, because it was the will of God. To point out that eating shrimp and catfish is an abomination in the eyes of God. To point out your right to stone your new wife when sex doesn't make her bleed on the sheets.
This makes believers in the circular argument angry and uncomfortable, and this is the purpose of the exercise.
No one is being censored, let the new comers to reddit discover the community for themselves. If you cannot deal with that fact that no one gives a fuck about your opinions, beliefs, and non-sense then don't come to reddit.
Your choice.
THIS
This made it to the mspainttoday subreddit!
If you don't like r/atheism there is a button called unsubscribe.
I don't think you read it the whole way through:
It is a bug in the algorithm they use to pick the top 10 reddits.
[deleted]
Your analysis fails because it fails to account for the ideological bent of the atheism reddit. r/Politics is less susceptible to categorical downvoting because r/Politics, in itself, is neutral to any one ideology. r/Atheism, on the other hand, definitely has a prevailing bias and is therefore more susceptible to categorical downvoting.
The flame-war issue arises when the downvoting and the mayhem it causes in the subreddit and its individual thread spills over into the front page (because of the algorithm), scaring away people who are new to reddit.
I don't agree with this decision however. If the r/Atheism is blacklisted from the front page, as should be any other subreddit devoted to a particular religious belief.
Are you fucking kidding me? What reddit.com/r/politics have you been looking at? Essentially every reddit in there is "left of center". Perhaps you meant politics in general, not r/politics?
What this boils down to is that Reddit is less afraid of their users first experiencing left of center politics than atheism. Which I can understand, most people, even many liberals, are theists. It's entirely hypocritical when contrasted with the concept of this site, but hey we're all hypocrites aren't we?
I've dipped my toe in a few times, and had it bitten off.
Just because I'm not an expert with a solidly defensible position on topics related to Israel and Palestine apparently means I can't ask questions about it.
Go figure
I have to agree, I don't think any non-liberal I send to this site will ever come back again after seeing the front page. I'm not liberal myself, but I must be close enough because I enjoy a lot of the r/politics stuff.
I would qualified that if spez had talked about it in particular. But this is the nature of almost all the subreddits. You expect to find pro-libertarian positions in Libertarians. You expect to find pro-marijuana positions in Marijuana. It seems like a given. And these subreddits certainly aren't filtered, despite the fact that they're also often controversial (marijuana is a hot topic in debate and is still banned for several uses in the entire US; libertarian topics are caustically criticizing government; same for other political and non-political reddits).
Or the opposite. Remember the r/drugs fiasco?
What universe are you living in?
Athiesm is neutral to any one theology. We disregard every one just as much as another.
Except there's no real point in blacklisting r/Christianity, for instance, because it's not popular enough for the blacklist to ever take effect.
with sixty thousand users, we could change that.....
Start posting all atheism stories in r/Christianity and see what happens. :)
I don't really understand why this received so many down votes. Sure, r/politics is heavily left leaning, but the category itself is not exclusive to liberals/democrats/etc. It is not r/democrats. To me, this is an important distinction, but apparently not a lot of other people agree.
Let me put it this way; if instead of r/politics we were to use a hypothetical r/republicans, and this subreddit had various popular posts detailing proof that Obama was the anti-christ, not a US citizen, [insert other extreme right craziness here], it might stand to follow that reddit would censor r/republicans in fear that it might drive away more moderate or left leaning potential users, especially if those kinds of posts repeatedly made the front page. Don't get me wrong, as an atheist myself, I don't think atheists are insane like the extreme right; only that, to some people of various weakdispositionsAHEM faiths, we can seem just as off-putting. r/atheism simply does not compare to r/politics or r/worldnews just because those subreddits are left-leaning/biased. Its a legitimate point.
HOWEVER, like strongfrog, I also disagree with the decision to blacklist r/atheism. Reddit has a strong atheist base, and it is silly to pretend its not there for the sake of seeming agreeable to new users. Its not at all comparable to the censorship of the 18+ material and frankly, I'm a little peeved with the excuses for blacklisting our subreddit. Sorry, but plenty of issues and postings are going to be divisive, and certain subreddits are going to create more flame wars than others. Neither should be grounds for censorship; how will we learn and take full advantage of the community at hand if we are not challenged in our views?
Thanks for the backup... I guess that people just hate me... lol
r/politics and r/worldnews both make the front page, and they're both full of conflict; so that argument smells like bullshit to me.
EDIT: Hey look, spez updated his post with more bullshit.
Here's from the original update...
And let's see...
These two things are not alike.
EDIT 2:
By the way, they rearranged the list, so Atheism is now 16th. You'd think they'd remove the censorship, but no: http://imgur.com/SeQho.png
[insert comment about mods furiously backpedalling]
It was because the algorithm was fucked. The reason r/politics is still on the front page is that, even though it's also controversial, when the algorithm is fixed it's still in the top. r/atheism is not.
I'm fine with that. If the fix is a legitimate fix and we're actually in 16th once you remove attacker traffic, fine.
They should fix the censorship that you see in that screenshot, then: http://imgur.com/SeQho.png
They should fix the your browser.
fucking hell. I'm quitting this subreddit right now. All anyone here does is complain.
This is the only subreddit that's been artificially censored due to content, we have due basis to complain.
NSFW and gonewild haven't been censored because of their content?
Actually there wasn't much complaining from that side so far, most people complaining in or about r/atheism were complaining about the regular submitters and commenters, not trying to stand up for the regular content.
Please do.
[deleted]
Not and never will be? There are 57,687 subscribers to the atheism subreddit.
Which means roughly 2/3rds of people disliked it enough to unsubscribe from it when it was a default subreddit.
Once you take out all the random accounts that are never actually used the actual percentage of unsubscribers is likely much larger.
Probably because r/atheism was a default subreddit you were automatically subscribed to when you first signed up. Any religious subreddit would be similarly skewed if it was a default subreddit, and it would look like Reddit was Buddhist or Muslim or something.
Your analysis, fishypants, is correct but that doesn't mean the argument isn't be bullshit.
Not sure why you are voted down, this seems like the most plausible explanation.
Eh, I expected it, comment karma doesn't mean anything, so I'm not particularly broken up over it.
It seems to me that spez and co want the front page to have things that will hook new users, while other redditors for the most part already have their subreddit subscriptions set up.
Because of that I'd guess that things like the Sears spam all over the front page earlier in the week are nightmares for them, but they know better than to erase the stories because people wig out.
You know, I assumed that all this censorship hysteria on here today was overblown and the result of some misunderstanding, and I smugly read spez's post awaiting that explanation. It seemed to be there, too, until that paragraph.
Shit. So it is censorship, and for a really piss-poor reason, too.
I'm really not sure that should be the administrators' call to make.
Especially when the Atheism reddit so frequently has actual material in it. You'll occasionally get the "your experience" kind of stories, but these never made it to the front and were always downvoted. People complain about the decline in quality of the front page replete with old memes--don't censor the front page from fresh material.
if you hate it so much go make your own site and quit whining. You have lost. Have a nice day. I'm enjoying my "not-auto-subscribed-to-atheism-circlejerk-bullshit" reddit much more now.
So refreshing not to see you tards around anymore.
And we're they flame-war assholes who lower the level of discourse on Reddit?
And another thing that needs to be changed: WHY can't I up-vote your comment more than once?
It's a business owner's call. We wouldn't want to frighten the mainstream now, would we?
Do you not understand what an administrator does?
Well, yeah, the admin is the one who should make the most important decisions, decisions like this. I think he meant that no one should make this call besides the people (through their voting), not the people in power, who are violating the whole democratic thing we have going here.
So it's just a bad word choice.
I fail to see how this is censorship. Are posts being removed? Are they banning users?
Posts are being prevented from displaying on the front page. It's a lot like banning books from stores. It's still censorship even if the authors are permitted to share their works among friends.
It's not at all like banning books from stores. It's like picking and choosing which books to put in the front window display. It's not as though the atheism subreddit (the book) has been deleted from reddit (the bookstore) entirely. It just isn't on prominent display anymore.
Honestly, though I disagree with the decision personally, it is totally within the purview of the administrators to make this call. Calling it censorship is just inflammatory.
Posts are not being prevented from being displayed on the front page. It works like any other subreddit does.
[deleted]
Agreed. That's the shittest argument I've ever heard. Essentially:
"We banned it because it's controversial".
Until I read the official explanation, I was rolling my eyes at all the complainers and conspiracy theorists. I didn't buy any of them, and I genuinely though that it would be nothing more than algorithmic blips or some technological oversight. Now we are told that a popular section has deliberately been removed because it is controversial and "polarising". That's just pathetic.
He was doing so well in his explanation, until the last few paragraphs. Not even loathsome Fark admins pull controversial topics from the front page, not unless there's significant NSFW content involved. I'm starting to think that the respect I had for Reddit was unfounded.
seconded
We need to not start talking like this yet. Reddit is user-based, and we just need to make it clear that we won't stand for this, and a change must be made. Reddit will come around, or we will not buy their merchandise, ad block, and eventually leave. I doubt that Reddit will continue to defend this misguided policy after hearing our disgust at the idea. Of course they're allowed to censor us if they want, but Redditors tend to be those who refuse to be censored.
I call absolute bullshit on this one. Admin doesn't agree with the content of the subreddit and simply bans it from the front page. I never really thought the subreddit was really being censored by admin but sure enough to my worst nightmare, I have been betrayed!
It isn't "banned", twisting words is as bad as the nutjob religious right. Don't do that shit. I've lost a lot for the atheist sub here on reddit because it is becoming no better than those on the theistic side of things. I'm glad that tripe is off the front page so I can spend more time seeing good stories instead of bickering about how christians are wrong and atheists are wrong and who is right and why (that is all actually pretty much just hypothesis, since one cannot in any manner prove NOR disprove the existence of a deity (of any religion or lack there of)....
I actually considered whether or not to use that term while writing my comment, but I decided that it was fair to say that it has been "banned" (from the front page). It hasn't been blocked, because it can still be accessed and it still appears for logged-in subscribers. I can't think of a more accurate verb to describe what the Admins have done.
It's only popular to those that actually subscribe to the subreddit, not everyone wants to read the bullshit that is spewed by r/atheist. Hell I am an atheist, and even I don't come to this subreddit or read anything from this subreddit, as all opinions in this subreddit is nothing but bias bullshit.
True... r/politics is no diffrent. Lame justification.
Not to mention that I see the same "everyone in r/politics is an idiot" bashing that I see people make against r/atheism.
This is a association fallacy. It is different. Bickering exists within the politics subreddit, however the bickering is not a one sided ordeal. In r/atheism it is all atheism submissions which garner attention by the algorithm via the down mods from the nutbag christians. r/politics on the other hand shares both right and left wing mentalities, stories, and user submissions. The arguments are relative since the purpose of politics itself tends to lean towards the idea of debate ergo argument. Politics without argument would be a rather mundane ordeal, everyone agrees so there really isn't anything to mention. Atheism implicitly does not carry this overtone. Atheism is the lack of theistic belief ergo religion. Something I myself identify with. what I do not identify with is the need to argue with the other religions and tell them they are wrong, unless my argument is founded on a misuse of science by their side and I feel needed to correct this. this however is not what is seen typically in the subreddit, we see arguments from the christians over very often inflammatory remarks by r/atheism submitters. This isn't prime for the front page. Not to mention politics covers a HUGE array of things, atheism covers but one. They are not associative.
You don't read the politics subredit, because otherwise you would realize how silly this claim is. The politics subreddit is more one sided than in the atheism subreddit. In the politics subreddit anyone that dares say anything that questions the infinite wisdom of Obama or doesn't toe the "everyone that disagrees is a Republican operative or a paid corporate shill" is burned at the stake quite fast.
Check my comment history if you feel like going through tens of thousands of comments. You'll see I post QUITE regularly to the politics subreddit. While I agree that a lot of the null bickering occurs, however there is often times serious political discourse. You're pushing it shading either side as completely unreasonable as you do. I don't think anyone there feels that Obama is infinitely wise nor that everyone that has a disagreement is republican or a paid voice. I disagree often times with the current administration, but my arguments tend to get positive disagreement from those oppositional to my point. This is because I don't come in saying "You're RONG!!! U Support Obamanazism!!!!1", which really does little but exist to be inflammatory (and unintelligible often times), its like youtube comments spill over.
The difference here is that there is a wide array of current news and subject matter that is relevant that makes it to the front page. The problem that I've seen with the atheism subreddit on the default front page is that the good submissions don't often make it due to the insane activity given to irrelevant yet highly inflammatory submissions which push those in particular to the front page.
Regardless of all this, I don't like the atheism subreddit making it to the front page anymore than I like the christian subreddits coming fore front. I AM atheist, yet I do feel that religious discussion from any angle being on the front page needs to be the choice of each person. To me this differs no more from schools. I do NOT like the idea of those nut job christian kids coming to school wearing "you're all going to burn in hell if you don't accept jesus" shirts, at the same time I'd find it similarly in bad taste if a kid wore a "Your god doesn't exist, LOL Sky Wizard" shirt. On the same toke I also think that any mention of religion should be completely banned from schools 100%, including baptist summer camp attendee shirts and atheist retreat Tees (do those exist? well, if they did) I don't like any intermingling of faith with any academic function. Same goes for my reddit. Including beleifs I agree with.
r/politics doesn't explicitly limit itself to only one side of the argument.
Neither does r/atheism.
Since we're defending a popular and intellectual reddit's material, maybe one shouldn't be so brutish when explaining how it's not just a flame war.
please explain how a subreddit entitled "atheism" is not about "atheism".
I agree - you'd instantly make anyone even remotely right leaning or even moderate flee for the hills based on all of the progressive political speak on Reddit. I wish I could show this site to half the people in my office, but they would be run off by the politics and news crowd. Spez's argument fails, it seems as if it is yet another case of not wanting to offend the religious. He needs to remove r/Atheism from the exclusions list or implement some piece of code that allows it BACK into the main list after a unique ip's first 5 or 10 visits or something. That's plenty of time to get accustomed and not "walk-in to a flame war". But should we have to resort to that? This is the internet, not an old lady's knitting circle.
don't worry. when fox news buys out conde nast, all that left wing stuff will go away.
Please post your opinion also here:
A word from Reddit-Admin spez: Why it should not be up to Redditors to decide what appears on the frontpage and what not. Your 2 cents, censorship or not?! http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/9eghu/a_word_from_redditadmin_spez_why_it_should_not_be/ Thanks!
edit: This thread is to make more people aware of what is going on, not too many redditors will read spez's posting if it's just in r/atheism. And it's posted as text in selfreddit so this is no attempt to whore karma. cheers!
[deleted]
This is larger than r/atheism, bro.
The unique IP thing wouldn't work as many people have dynamic IPs.
Pft. All the liberal spew in this place is what keeps me around! Last thing I want is a bunch of circle jerk yes-men to chat with, even though most of you on here seem to enjoy that sort of thing ;)
So a group can 'flame-war' any subreddit off the front page?
Sounds like a bad decision to me.
No no, its only "religious flame-wars". The difference being religious people deserve special consideration because their god told them so.
Ah right, forgot about that part.
Fortunately, by extension, you can add a religious slant to just about anything.
Nicely put! It made me laugh even though I was enraged...
Spez, I hope you read dnicks comment above. This is ridiculous. What the hell is happening to reddit... Don't become another digg, listen and learn.
I believe he said almost the opposite; constant flame wars on a subreddit cause high activity on that subreddit which cause it to rank high in the algorithm which make it more likely to be on the front page. i.e. in general (for "any" subreddit):
.. except for r/moviecritic and r/atheism. Those two particular subreddits have been removed from the equation
It might still be a bad decision, but it's not a bad decision for the reason you've given, because the reason you've given isn't true. If your reason had been "so a group can 'flame-war' only r/moviecritic and r/atheism off the front page" then it would have been correct.
It's a pedantic point, but at least it's correct.
If it's highly active, it's highly active. It shouldn't matter why.
Possibly, possibly not. I can think of some situations where that principle doesn't appear to be valid, in practice. For example r/nsfw and the porn sub-reddit are apparently very active (I'm assuming because they post pornography and people like pornography), but both of them are excluded from the front page in the same way r/atheism is and yet they don't have a large amount of people community insisting that they be restored to the front page and the people on this page that are insisting atheism be restored haven't previously insisted that those two others were restored.
I'm not saying that atheism shouldn't be on the front page because of that, just pointing out the pre-existing situation that shows something contrary to your principle, in a similar way to how I was showing that what the previous comment I replied to was saying was contrary to the reality of what Spez actually said.
You're point isn't correct, actually. He's saying that the flame-wars activity is the reason it was 'incorrectly' showing up on the front page and it's the reason they specifically filtered it. By that logic, someone could 'flame-war' other reddits, which should logically prompt them to manually filter them from the front page as well.
This may not work in practice, but from a pedantic standpoint, that was my point.
So a group can 'flame-war' any subreddit onto the front page.
And an admin can remove any subreddit off the front page (by adding it to an exclusion list)
I'm going to argue against my point now, before somebody smarter does it for me. The difference between r/atheism and r/politics is that the latter encompasses both sides of the divide, whereas the former only represents one. This puts r/atheism more in line with r/republican, for example.
So now perhaps we should discuss what it'd be like if r/republican were actually popular and making it to the front page regularly. Would that attract more republicans to the site and swing the demographic even further right (in hypothetical-land)? Would everybody else just tolerate it or would they leave? Would it turn off new users with different perspectives and turn the site into a mind-numbingly uniform echo chamber / circle jerk / ookie cookie?
Truly wondering here... it'd be nice to have a discussion on how this shapes the site and its demographic, instead of just crying censorship and getting huffy.
You mean between people who like Ron Paul and people who love Ron Paul?
You're so lucky I wasn't drinking something as I read your comment.. and by that I mean my monitor is so lucky..
Let's say "theoretically" it is inclusive of all positions. Nothing in the title precludes it from such.
Atheism certainly could be for those for and against it, but "theoretically" clearly wasn't what was used to make this decision. They based this on the actual content supposedly (or people's complaints that claimed to be about the actual content).
THE PEOPLE WHO LOVE RON PAUL ARE PART OF AN INSIDE JOB!! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!
Atheism treats all religions the same. How is this not equality or more than one side?
Any customer can have a car painted any color he wants, so long as he understands that we'll laugh at him if he asks for one that doesn't exist.
its like theists vs atheists, get it? all religions vs no religions.
You killed it. Don't do that.
I disagree. Each subreddit represents a topic. It does not endorse a position on a topic. The atheism subreddit is for the discussion of atheism, whether it is for or against. It is not titled "Atheists Only!" I personally welcome viewpoints diverse from my own. If a religious person wants to come in and participate in some high-brow discourse, I'm all for it. There is nothing in the word "atheism" that precludes this.
There may be a creationist that comes here to Reddit, notices the "Science" subreddit, and gets angry. Maybe to him, science is the work of the devil! To him it isn't just a topic of discussion, it is something he opposes. What about the "Marijuana" subreddit? I don't smoke it nor do I subscribe to the subreddit. While I'm not opposed to the subject, it's not something I would purposely put on my front page reddit list. I could have very well be opposed to it.
Where do we draw the line? Why do we treat a topic of discussion as one-sided when it takes no stance? Anti-atheism discussions are still discussions on the topic of atheism and would belong in the atheism subreddit. It makes sense to me.
This is censorship, plain and simple. It was taken off the front page because it was controversial and could potentially turn someone off from joining the Reddit community. The same argument could be made for many of the subreddits in the default list. The only difference is it's a bit more devisive.
my thoughts exactly....
We should post all discussions on atheism in r/philosophy
I think r/philosophy tends to ignore discussions that they know aren't going to produce anything useful or illuminate a subject. Basically they (the more knowledgeable regulars, rather than the argumentative upstarts) tend to avoid flame wars.
How are questions in philosophy that don't have at least two sides arguing even worth discussing at all? I mean if everyone agrees you usually don't venture too far from provable, evidence-based reality which leaves little room for big, philosophical questions.
Both sides? All four of us conservatives that actually read this site vs the rest of you?
eh... Not sure that's a solid argument when you put it that way. Republicans are more likely to question critically their republican beliefs at some point in their life, where as anyone opposed to r/atheism probably has never closely examined why they believe their silly things. And it is within their values and beliefs that they are told not to question their superstitions which is why they get even more worked up when someone questions them because they have never had to before. And this is their problem, they are at fault for not questioning things critically before showing up to an obvious debate of truth.We shouldn't be seen as guilty and forced to the back of the reddit bus because "people of faith" get all worked up when their ridiculous morals, values, and beliefs are put in check, when its their own fault for not questioning these things before. And I believe behind all the seemingly harsh content in r/atheism sits the slogan " Please just at least question why you hold so tightly to your beliefs....and If you still find truth in them, please just move on". To clarify,.... eh i forgot my point. God must be censoring me, fucking v-chip. ps. r/atheism is what got me coming back to reddit all the time in the beginning, the idea that there was a whole lot of seemingly smart people together on this site attempting to get rational thinking to the forefront of things and the site wasn't afraid to mix it in with all the other news . It made me happy to see that a lot of people whom were just looking for some news or laughs might be exposed to it and continue it.
Isn't that proving berticus' point?
edit: format
...You must not be reading the same r/politics as I am.
You beat me too it :P.
r/politics would be closer to a r/religions or r/religiousdiscussion or something like that.
Agreed! Are we moving toward a situation where we have to hide discussions about the basic human questions of being and epistemology, while discussions about bacon fetishes still warrant front-page treatment?
Pretty pathetic!
Yeah, I hang around r/atheism and r/politics is too divisive even for me.
The REAL reason I think it's being removed from the front page is because reddit is having trouble attracting new advertisers that likely are either scared to advertise on 'An Atheist website' or they have a believer making the ad buying decisions, and he/she finds it offensive.
Have you noticed lately the advertising is almost exclusively Amazon on the front page? They need advertisers, and being less controversial is the way they want to do it.
It's still censorship, and it's bullshit. They need to find another solution or they will very quickly start hemorrhaging users. I'll try to help come up with some more ideas for advertisers and you should too. If reddit has a glut of advertisers, they won't resort to stuff like this. They are probably getting this pressure from above, and can't say it out loud.
What does it matter? Half the politics stories on reddit aren't posted to r/politics. This is the one and only thing that pisses me off about reddit.
Anyone see anything wrong with the following for "hotness": (up votes - down votes) * (votes in past hour / 100)
I'm bad at math, but it seems to work.
To quote another redditor (can't remember who): I've never hit the upvote arrow so furiously in my life.
You can't compare the two. They have similarity but are fundamentally different in term of topics and population.
While it's true that both of them had people fighting over them for centuary, the mentality and maturity is different.
[deleted]
I think the main difference is that r/poitics submissions usually involve current events, and regardless of which side of the issue you're on you aren't going to "attack" the subreddit and downvote everything out of spite.
On the other hand, lots of people despise r/Atheism (just as many people despise r/Christianity), and will subscribe to it for the sole purpose of downvoting everything and essentially trashing the place.
Hopefully you can see the distinction; both can be divisive, but in drastically different ways.
[deleted]
Of course not! Every health care and Glenn Beck update is vital to the front page reddit community...
I agree that the argument sounds weak. I'd be interested in hearing what stats made r/atheism too controversial for the front page, as compared to other busy reddits like r/politics.
i.e. was an objective decision made simply on stats alone, or was there as subjective decision made based on an admins opinion?
Spez: "The issue was that /atheism received approximately 10x as many downvotes as the typical front-page reddit."
Can you give stats Spez that compare r/atheism to a controversial subreddit that is still in the top 10 to show why it was much worse than that?
Also, I'm kind of ashamed of all you guys being rude to Spez. Have a bit more respect please.
Bad analogy.
In politics, every viewpoint is included in the title. You get articles that are divisive but from more than one side of the spectrum. All of the divisive articles on r/atheism champion one side. You argument would work if r/democrats or r/republicans would were allowed in the top 10.
r/politics is like r/religion. r/atheism is like r/democrats.
if r/athiest whas r/religion it would be different. If r/politics was r/liberalhipsters it would be different. Get your proverbial heads out of your proverbial asses.
Or, you could read down a few more comments -- where that issue is brought up by multiple people (myself included) -- before spouting your unhelpful, uninformed, and unfriendly nonsense.
edit: spelling.
I'm sorry, I have a limit to the amount of bullshit I can wade through. My bad.
[deleted]
Why?
Don't ask, just downvote