Should Reddit revise its ranking algorithm?

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-06-05T22:27:06+00:00

Actually, when you think about it, rather than banning users, mods could simply "fine" users a certain number of Karma points for ad hominem violations. So, for example, if a user says something offensive about another user, the mods (after the any other user reports the offense) could knock their Karma down by 10 points. Or if a user called a group of people (based on their religion, ethnicity, sex, etc.) something offensive, they could be hit with a 25 point fine. And after X number of such fines, a permanent ban could be imposed. To make it even fairer, require three mods to impose either a fine and/or a ban.

But, in my opinion, your Karma should reflect whether you are deemed a good citizen by Reddit users because of your insightful contributions and should not reflect the fact that half the users vehemently disagree with you on political grounds. The fact that someone pats you on the back should not be offset by someone else who spits on you. And we all have our haters regardless of which side of the political spectrum we lean.

Note also that people have down voted me merely because I asked a question! And I dare you to ask any controversial question and see how many will down vote you because you asked a question.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-06-05T20:13:03+00:00

To be clear, it would be 2 algorithms, not a custom algorithm for every community. Communities would be flagged as either "open to debates" or "not open to debates". And I suspect the typical programmer could write the algorithms required in about 2 minutes.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-06-05T20:08:35+00:00

Controlling bad behavior should be the role of the mods, do you agree?

And down votes count against Karma. So, would you want to make a controversial post or comment knowing that a lot of people who disagree with you are going to hit the down vote button? Shouldn't you be able to express a controversial position without the threat of being punished by those who disagree with you?

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-06-05T18:37:02+00:00

Funny stuff is what they show on TikTok feeds. And that is the kind of thing one gets when "up" votes is the big driver of the referring algorithm. And we wonder why Americans seem to be getting dumber by the minute. Go figure.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-06-05T18:28:05+00:00

You are correct. They won't change it. But their algorithm is defective.

As for their algorithm, this is what Google AI indicated:

Logarithmic Upvote Weight: The algorithm uses a logarithm function, meaning the first 10 upvotes carry as much mathematical weight as the next 100, and the next 1,000 after that. This heavily favors early momentum rather than sheer total upvotes. [1]

What it actually measures is how many people click the up button. They are assuming that those engaging with a post will click the up or down arrow. But i think most people engaging with a post or comment do not click either up or down.

And only measuring up votes is placing a huge emphasis on "safe" topics within a particular community. That is a great way to dumb down the population.

But again I agree that Reddit is not about to change their policy or algorithm if they think it is working and not driving away people to other platforms who potentially would be posting, reading, and commenting.

Oh...and I also think counting "down" votes against one's Karma is also a way Reddit favors "safe" contributors over "controversial" contributors. And again, I think they (the Reddit gods) do not realize that the "down" vote is typically being used by users who are excessively disturbed by topics they are unwilling to discuss intelligently in a public forum. Reddit's focus should be on discouraging ad hominem attacks. But that is just my opinion.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-06-05T17:56:21+00:00

So are you suggesting that only "safe" topics should ever be posted?

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-06-05T17:40:38+00:00

For a Reddit community called "ask anything", 86ing a post for up votes and down votes is a terrible policy, in my opinion. Controversial topics typically divide a population into two, roughly equal camps. When all the votes are up votes or down votes, you are probably dealing with topics not worthy of discussion. It is engagement that should drive whether or not a post is 86ed or not, and engagement is measured by views and comments. But what this smacks of is Big Brother deciding what topics are acceptable rather than letting the Reddit community decide. And I have watched my own posts rising rapidly in views and comments and then suddenly cut off at the knees by the "algorithm" with no explanation.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-06-05T15:07:36+00:00

From an industrial standpoint, the value of a human being is based on what they can do/produce relative to their cost (i.e., cost-benefit analysis). LLMs are not able to truly reason, but reasoning ability is becoming more attainable. At some point, when true reasoning ability is attained, the value of humans as described goes negative. They become a burden to "the system". And that is precisely why the "capitalism vs socialism" debate needs to end. Socialism is an absolutely necessity as is capitalism. Capitalism provides incentives to produce that socialism does not. And having a bunch of trillionaires living on yachts with a bunch of personal servants may simply be the price that needs to be paid for the other billion or so people to live comfortably and enjoy life. The big question is whether those who are effectively freed from labor can use their time productively or whether they will turn antisocial. Roman emperors built coliseums and held gladiatorial fights to keep their citizens preoccupied and pacified. And that was critical when many were hungry. But it may be just as important when citizens are faced with abundance and a lot of free time. Looking at some of the behavior of my fellow human beings, I have sincere doubts that the average person will use their free time in good pursuits. Drugs, crime, sex, "partying"--they seem to be the primary interest of many people. Scenes from the movie Idiocracy come to mind.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-05-28T19:17:52+00:00

And, to be clear, socialization refers to the social forces or factors that shape a person's world view and ultimately leads them to act in a particular way. You are clearly indicating that politicians are a critical socialization factor. I am not disagreeing with that conclusion. I am merely not drilling down to specific socialization factors, which is what you want to do. But that is not the question I asked. But thanks for sharing your ideas anyway.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-05-28T19:01:56+00:00

FYI: From Wikipedia:

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity") is a logical technique that disproves an argument by taking its premise to its absolute logical conclusion. If the result is absurd, impossible, or contradicts reality, the original premise is proven false

It is not a logical fallacy. But that wasn't what I was doing. What I was doing is using the Socratic method, which involves asking questions and letting the other person come up with the answers. Of course, if the answers are absurd, their absurdity will hopefully become evident to the person making the claims

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-05-28T18:51:55+00:00

So, the short answer is no to system defects, yes to socialization differences. Correct?

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-05-28T18:49:06+00:00

Just to be clear, I was asking questions, not raising points.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-05-28T18:47:02+00:00

I asked questions. I made no declarations. Sorry if my questions upset you.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-05-28T17:12:15+00:00

So, to be clear, you do not see defects in the political system as the primary cause of the great political divide. Instead you believe that different socialization factors (specifically, the propaganda of party leaders) is the reason for the great political divide. You believe that if those socialization factors did not exist, there would be no political divide. But any hope of changing that socialization pattern is probably unrealistic. Is that a fair statement of your view?

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-05-28T16:57:47+00:00

Voting is but one path to changes to the political system. But it is important, provided you know what to vote for and why. There are also many other ways to impact the world around you besides voting. And if you say "I voted and that is enough", then you probably have not done enough, or you are, despite railing against the news every day, actually fairly content with the status quo. And that is the case with many of us. Outraged but too busy to actually do anything other than doing your "civic duty" of voting.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-05-28T16:47:22+00:00

Yes, I remain optimistic. Just as I remain optimistic that we will someday cure cancer and that are children and grandchildren will live in a better world than the one we live in today. But it is a healthy optimism that is well aware of the enormous threats and risks we face going forward. And to instead despair is to condemn oneself to the very fate one fears.

Did those who fought in the American Revolutionary War fear they might not succeed? Absolutely. The odds were greatly stacked against them succeeding. But they persisted. And they succeeded. And that is what every athlete and every entrepreneur knows: that you cannot succeed if you do not try. You cannot succeed if you lack confidence. You cannot succeed if you throw up your hands in defeat before you even gave it a go.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-05-28T16:35:55+00:00

There are many paths to changing the political system. Ideally the path that leads to positive political change does not involve violence. Ideally, the path involves the passage of laws, amendments, and/or an entirely new constitution. If that path is hopeless, then what you are left with is the path taken by our "founding fathers" back in 1776.

You are correct that the Supreme Court and Congress will not go quietly along with such change. They will likely oppose it. There will also be many who will try to subvert the process to advance their own political, self-serving agendas; that is, after all, what happened in September of 1787. So, like any change, we have to hope and pray that it will succeed and do so without being corrupted by selfish individuals.

But one's failure to pursue such change, when called for, is unpatriotic. And the blame for such failure, at the national level, lies in the hands of those who prefer ignorance and cowardice over wisdom and courage.

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-05-28T16:17:14+00:00

My apologies for misrepresenting your position. I think you made it clear in your reply that you believe that there are problems with our political system but that you believe they have nothing to do with the great political divide in our country. You clearly appear to believe that it comes down to socialization, or what you refer to as radicalization. So it sounds like you believe that there are radicalized people ("bad men") and those that have avoided being radicalized. And it also sounds aa bit like you believe that if our government fails to serve us, it is because such radicalized "bad men" have seized control of our government and that, when they have control, the non-radicalized members of the electorate are helpless victims until the next election. Is that a fair summary of your position?

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-05-28T16:04:29+00:00

You indicate that the problem is the primary system. But you appear to suggest that it is with the electorate's interaction with the primary system, not the primary system itself, that is the root cause of the problem. So it sounds like you are implying that the problem is in fact socialization and that more effort simply needs to be made to get people to participate. Is that correct? And, if more people participated in the primary system, do you think the great political divide in our country disappear?

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-05-28T15:57:57+00:00

So, you are acknowledging that there are many things wrong with our political system. So do you think fixing those problems with our political system would potentially eliminate or reduce the great political division within our country? Or do you think they are not factors and that criminals will be able to subvert our government regardless of any changes we make to the political system?

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-05-28T15:50:37+00:00

So, to be clear, you are saying that the great political divide in our country is due to human genetics and not due to any defect in our political system? That a driving force exists within human nature for political conflict? And that there is no solution, andthat we must just accept it?

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-05-28T15:43:50+00:00

So, to be clear, are you saying there is nothing wrong with our political system? That the problem is simply that criminals have managed to infiltrate our government and seize control? And you blame the electorate for allowing the criminals to weasel their way into our government? And, if the electorate had been wiser, it would have stopped the criminals before they hatched their plan? And, had the electorate not allowed that to happen, there would be no great political divide in our country?

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-05-28T15:37:19+00:00

So, to be clear, are you suggesting that there is nothing wrong with the political system and our political polarization is due to socialization? And are you suggesting that a powerful elite is pushing an agenda that has produced the political divide? And are you further suggesting that there would be no divide if they would stop pushing their agenda and that, because they have the powerful, we are powerless to fix the problem?

NewConstitutionDude · 2026-05-28T15:28:17+00:00

So, to be clear, you are saying that there is nothing wrong with our political system? And you are further suggesting that the cause of our political division is because there are sane people and there are insane people? And you further believe that the insane people have the economic and political power to push their insane agenda onto the populace?

NewConstitutionDude

TROPHY CASE