Looks like they just came on board as Reddit debuted the new user profile format [0]. I just got a message to turn it on as a user this past week. It seems like it'll be a nice feature for not just users, but brands/organizations as well. I hope it sticks to user engagement/meta-type posts (IAMAs) rather than being an account that acts as an auto-submitter of WaPo headlines to r/news/politics/worldnews.
That said, one of the challenges of having an official Reddit account that constantly engages with users (it's been actively commenting and replying to users), I would imagine, would be having to be in IAMA mode 24/7. That's fun until something a controversial question/challenge comes up, in which case hours/days of silence will be seen as an admission of guilt/coverup (see r/AMADisasters).
I happen to have a spreadsheet of all Reddit AMA backfires (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DTCRqeQvjOZAyngC31kn...), and the common thread among AMA disasters is the original poster being genuinely unaware that they might be received negatively (or they are just trolls). I don't think that will be the case with the WaPo, anyways.
AMADisasters was the reason I made the list. (it turns out the mods would not let me post it there because it would make finding AMADisasters too easy)
> I hope it sticks to user engagement/meta-type posts (IAMAs) rather than being an account that acts as an auto-submitter of WaPo headlines to r/news/politics/worldnews.
A friend of mine is the lead mod for the /u/washingtonpost account, and his primary goal for that account is engagement. Even as far as submissions go, they are trying to create content crafted for reddit, such as those news rollups they're experimenting with. His personal goal is for the account to become like the Wendy's Twitter of Reddit--a bit more irreverent and conversational, and willing to joke around with users. So far he's gotten a generally warm reception, especially when he pops up in unexpected places like TIL.
Part of the opportunity for them with reddit is that it's a bit less ephimeral than Twitter or Facebook, which creates new opportunities. As long as a piece of content is relevant, it stays on top of people's front pages, and WaPo can jump into the thread to answer popular questions, which then everyone can see. In a way, this actually gives them an incentive to not auto-post and let stuff rise organically, so they can engage in the right places.
As an avid redditor, I really feel like they have the right idea (it helps he's into the same things as reddit in general) and I feel like good things are gonna come of this over the next few months.
> That said, one of the challenges of having an official Reddit account that constantly engages with users (it's been actively commenting and replying to users), I would imagine, would be having to be in IAMA mode 24/7
Is that really different from Twitter?
At first, for the first organization that does it, maybe. I have to believe that over time people will get over organizations' inability to respond immediately to things on Reddit just because it's Reddit.
Yeah, I think community conventions are definitely a factor. But main differentiator will be the tone of the account, and the more personal/thoughtful it is (as it is now), the more users will expect it to be forthcoming when there's some controversy to answer for. I think interface plays a big deal too, though. Twitter threaded conversations/replies are still quite difficult to follow, and individual queries are easy to ignore/miss. Whereas in Reddit, top-upvoted replies (which is frequently calling-out-your-bullshit type questions) are going to be the first thing users see when reading your threads by default.
As a news organization, I would hope they understand the implications of PR and how silence can be very damning. I can't see them falling for it especially considering how many times they have sen others do it and it not go very well for them.
Upvotes aren't an accurate representation of users. The higher a post's score, the more upvotes it needs to increase.
For example, a post with a score of 7 would increase by 1 every time it receives an upvote, but may need 10 or 15 upvotes to increase by another point once it gets over 1000 points (made up numbers).
A few months ago, the admins made a change to the algorithm to allow posts to gain much more points than before. Now, a post gets 1 point per upvote until, say, 10,000 upvotes, after which it only needs 5 upvotes per point.
>After 10 years it's now as important to kids as Facebook.
Are there some stats on demographics? I know it was cool for kids like 10 years ago, but did the demographics just shift with the initial age group or are they still actively getting teenagers?
Looking at the comments on some on those stories, it feels like they are being swarmed by the pro-Trump accounts that permeates through a lot of reddit in an organized manner. I wonder what step online communities can do to protect against such brigading meant to alter and direct opinions, without sacrificing the freedom they offer their user to have an opinion and discuss it.
Machine learning for automatic fact correction seems like a nice answer, until you realize it would definitely go wrong, or be used to control opinion in an even stronger way.
Interesting. As an outsider (didn't vote for Trump or Clinton), Reddit seems decidedly organized against the Trump supporters on that site. From what I can tell, even the admins have made core changes to Reddit that any reasonable person would see as an effort to reduce the visibility of the Trump subreddit.
I think the Trump subreddit is very childish (seems to be intentional). But I hate the thought of websites like Reddit, FB, and Twitter engaging in practices that clearly and systematically try to reduce the visibility and legitimacy of one political viewpoint. What if the table was turned against the liberal viewpoint? I would be just as worried.
As I saw it, that subreddit was mostly artificially increasing their visibility, and the measures introduced by the admins countered that. So I don't think they're actively trying to reduce the visibility of one political viewpoint, but rather to give it the visibility that is actually somewhat proportional to how much visibility users desire it to have.
This is fairly easily disproved by looking at non-US subreddits. I frequent /r/france, /r/unitedkingdom and /r/sweden and non-liberal viewpoints, although less popular, are certainly not silenced. They're just that: less popular (thus more downvotes).
Things are different for the trump subreddit because it's a subreddit that has actively engaged in hostility against other subreddits and particular reddit users. Calls for brigading, slurs and harrassment of other users and admins, I've seen it all by now. It's reprehensible.
The main Trump subreddit would have long been banned and nuked out of existence if it weren't as popular as it is today. Right now, Reddit would face too much backlash if it outright banned the subreddit for continuing not to comply with the site rules. So it's understandable that the admins are trying to handle the situation somehow -- that's not "an effort to reduce [its] visibility", it's a compromise that doesn't involve removing the sub outright.
There's plenty of pro-trump subreddits which aren't involved in this nonsense because they're not spamming, harrassing, using bots etc. You don't hear about them because they get lost in the noise.
> to handle the situation somehow -- that's not "an effort to reduce [its] visibility", it's a compromise that doesn't involve removing the sub outright.
I'm certain what will happen is that the admins will keep adjusting the anti-voting ring algorithms until they effectively nerf all of the accounts that frequent the_donald and vote there.
Then they have a cover for any backlash because they didn't do anything specifically targeting the_donald, it just happens to be the case that the_donald "unfortunately got impacted" by the new algorithm due to the community's behavior.
Is it brigading only if you don't accept the narrative? Half of the popular voted for the man, can't remember anyone complained when Obama was in the office.
ever since the Hiatt(s)[0] (Fred Hiatt and his wife, Margaret Shapiro ) took over editorial position on Wapo. The paper has become a neoconservative/neoliberal operation.
Bill Moyer did a nice episode showing the disproportionate number of report Wapo did in pushing fro a war in Iraq [1].
Among notable neoconservatives/neoliberals working at the post and using it as a pulpit are Robert Kagan [2] who worked on the "Project for the New American Century" that became the blueprint of Iraq war agenda.
For me the nail in the coffin against the Post was when they used an unknown research firm to push for a neo-mccarthyism Russian connection to over 200 blogs and publishers [4],[5].
It was interesting to see how much of the media was cheering the cruise missile strike in Syria. I think socially and economically WaPo is very liberal but for some reason most of the media loves almost anything to do with war.
Yeah, it's kind of become the Breitbart of the left... not that the left really needed such a thing =( I don't think the defence to propaganda should be more propaganda, and I'm ashamed of "my side" resorting to it. It's made me really cynical.
Is it really that bad? I'm not American so perhaps I missed the decline, I've only noticed them breaking a number of stories recently (previous month for example) that all seem fairly credible, albeit often via anonymous sources.
I admit I can't discern the difference between the dozen WAPO or NYT articles I've read in the previous fortnight, for instance.
I do like the fact that a newspaper equates itself with any Joe with a resdit signon. How many steps in between wapo and "Average Joe and his facts and opinion?" maybe 3??
pretty interesting, seems like one of the first examples of news organizations "advertising" on reddit. I wonder how it will go down and if any others will follow.
I can't see this ending well for them consider there are large communities like The_Donald known to brigade and use bots against anyone who criticizes their God Emperor. Facebook has groups, but none as large, coordinated, and malicious as on reddit, where the admins won't put on their big boy pants and ban them despite numerous rule violations. WaPo is just wading into a swamp of alligators.
People are unhappy with this comment but I think it speaks to Avi's (and extension wapo's) lack of credibility. Really disliked outside of the dc buro ever since the bezos acquisition. Furthering their misdirected"digital" push is hardly something to celebrate.
WaPo has credibility, and Avi doesn't. There's a drastic contradiction.
You want nasty? Check out what Troy Aikman said about Skip Bayless if you want nasty.
“To say I’m disappointed in the hiring of Skip Bayless would be an enormous understatement,” Aikman said. “Clearly, [Fox Sports president of national networks] Jamie Horowitz and I have a difference of opinion when it comes to building a successful organization. I believe success is achieved by acquiring and developing talented, respected and credible individuals, none of which applies to Skip Bayless."
Mark that.
EDIT: FYI Skip Bayless started a rumor in Dallas that Troy Aikman was gay. I don't think Troy forgets that. You shouldn't either.
Now that's a match made in heaven. Or Hell. Or whatever.
Now Washington Post will have another outlet to tell Millennials why we need to invade Iraq again. Or Syria. Or Ukraine. Or wherever they are stirring up the pot for.
That said, one of the challenges of having an official Reddit account that constantly engages with users (it's been actively commenting and replying to users), I would imagine, would be having to be in IAMA mode 24/7. That's fun until something a controversial question/challenge comes up, in which case hours/days of silence will be seen as an admission of guilt/coverup (see r/AMADisasters).
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/6bu4vg/what_a...
reply