It's more the fact that you NEVER get 2 sides on Reddit, every sub just turns into a circle jerk. Posting on Reddit is pointless unless you're just trying to validate your preexisting views.
The problem is that for some reason, nuance is scarce in Reddit threads. It's not usually thoughtful, multifaceted opinions that get posted, but instead short, quippy, polarized statements that intentionally or otherwise come off as combative.
It's not really possible to have a productive conversation like that, regardless of the topic. Everything degrades into an endless game of oneupmanship that escalates until the opinions being represented are distorted well beyond anything espoused by most people in real-life discussions.
My girlfriend browses Reddit often so I’ve had the chance to see how a self-proclaimed heavy user interacts with the platform. After seeing that, it makes sense to me why the platform is how it is when compared to isolated forums or discussion boards.
Reddit has two types of users, more or less: browsers and posters. The browsers will probably never post anything, or will post so rarely that it does not warrant mentioning. The regular posters will dominate the discussion in a given subreddit, and probably eventually moderate it, so there is a very strong in-group effect. The only way as an outsider to penetrate that in-group is to make well-liked, popular quips which pander to the moderators and browsers.
On the contrary, a forum or discussion board typically has two classes of users, in my experience: active posters who contribute to discussions they want to, and lurkers, who are usually new, and are absorbing from current posters. There is an implicit assumption that users have probably been watching the forum for a while to get a lay of the land before posting and have read through a good amount of the site’s content, and when they post, they are accepted since they are aware of the conversation and can build on it.
The culture of lurking and the desire of viewers to discuss topics with others is what keeps forums strong, IMO. In their place, Reddit has casual browsers who happen to see content and upvote it (effectively deciding democratically what others will see). When a large portion of users who have no intention to engage with others can dictate what their fellow members are most likely to see, it quickly degenerates to a “who can make the coolest comment” club.
The other problem is that forums are divided into threads that each progress in a linear fashion, while comment trees inevitably fragment into a thousand sub-discussions each regurgitating the same points and arguments over and over in slightly different form. It's certainly possible to be "jumped on" in a forum but if three people are making the same argument you can quote them all and make one reply which rebuts the point. It's effectively impossible for comment-tree discussions to come to any consensus except via mob-rule. There will always be someone else wading in with the same argument and someone else rebutting the point in the same fashion and being rebutted in turn.
Comment-tree discussions, especially gamified ones with "points" etc certainly are compelling, they're literally designed to be an endless quicksand for argumentation and gratification, which is why they've taken over. They're fun. But they are awful for reaching a consensus.
Also yes, suppressing dissident voices so that nobody can even read objections and counterarguments is the worst part about Reddit. That model barely even works here (politics discussions inevitably end up in a dogpile of flags and downvotes) with norms around not abusing your buttons, but it absolutely does not work in a mass-market social media site with hundreds of millions of users.
Rarely does a subject have two equally intellectually valid sides. BOtH sIDes is pointless once the facts have been observed and established. The world is not nearly as gray as some fantasize it to be.
If I go to r/cars and ask if I can safely use diesel in my gasoline vehicle there is not and should not be two sides. Destructive commenters who try to advocate for otherwise will obviously be immediately deleted or banned, and entertaining their arguments and complaints about "censorship" and why they think they should be let back in is futile. Trying to argue with them is like trying to argue a complex math problem with ChatGPT - they will always hallucinate a new excuse and nonsensical response no matter how many times you try. A brief look at r/ModSupport will lay evident that Reddit's issue is a lack of moderation tools, not excess.
As much as there is propaganda praising Russia in this conflict, there is pro-Ukraine propaganda, nothing new about it. The fact that you do see one sided propaganda is just indicative of media outlets you use filtering the propaganda they feed you. Or in other words, construct narrative "our side is good, their side is bad".
Why is it so hard for some people to accept that media outlets are filtering propaganda on other divisive topics too?
Reddit hive mind latches onto feel good stories but ignores logic and history. Everything is black and white, good and evil to the average Redditor.
It's best to avoid Reddit front page and large subs.
PS. Reddit's transparent upvote system highly encourages popular and feel good opinions at the expense of accuracy. You can write a quality post backed by peer reviewed science but still get downvoted if it doesn't fit within a sub's consensus opinion.
Absolutely, but the Ukrainian government is rotten to the bone and ultra corrupt as well, it needs to be exposed. Officials are lining their pockets with foreign aid, including the Ukrainian president. I'll still support Ukraine over Russia, but Ukrainian officials are crooks, and you cannot say that on r/worldnews without facing a ban.
It makes leadership complicit and is entirely fair if parent is correct; nobody's going to give a shit about wartime grift after the fact.
Men are/were being conscripted to defend that country. Knowing your leadership is selling you out is actionable information to those deciding whether to answer the call.
But this could also be psyops/lies/propaganda. Russia put a lot of effort into influencing opinion over the last two decades.
Yes, US side, NATO side and Ukraine side, war crimes that US has committed are also very bad.
Even though considering "whataboutism", Russians as a nation are universally hated among their neighbors, they invaded, killed and displaced and are currently occupying lands in Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Kazakhstan etc. etc.
And that would be main difference, while US bombs tyrannic regiments and topples dictatorships, Russia invades and is trying to annex their neighbors. It has economy roughly of a Spain and is basically a shithole thug regiment that needs to be dissolved and fast.
Wrong. These are not views, these are facts. Yes, Russia is a terrorist state.
As I said, war crimes are wrong no matter the "side". However there is huge difference between bombing tyrants and dictators vs raping kids in Ukraine.
I mean, on the whole we profit more by having a cheap source of competent labor adjacent to europe, but that doesn't stop the military-industrial-congressional complex from making sales.
If the US is happy with a protracted war, then isn’t pro-Ukraine propaganda anti-war? If we’re willing to keep supplying them indefinitely, it just becomes a matter of which country has the will/manpower to fight.
Since Ukraine is fighting for their home, I guess they’ll have the willpower advantage. So, we should root for peace, achieved as soon as possibly, by the invaders leaving.
I don’t see a ton of other ways, it seems like anything else would require Ukraine to give up something, which is a pretty hard sell in response to an unprovoked invasion.
(I mean obviously it is Ukraine’s right to decide if they want to, like, sacrifice some territory in exchange for a peace treaty, but they seem to have pretty good morale and Russia didn’t respect their previous agreement not to invade, so it seems like it would be hard to start negotiating).
