Reddit is interesting from the perspective of collective intelligence because it enables peculiar kinds of collectives that can grow quickly to reach hundreds of thousands of members. While it is debatable whether these collectives can be said to demonstrate collective intelligence, there is no doubt that they can be effective in serving their purpose under certain circumstances.
The experience of membership in a subreddit community is characterised by seeing largely the same posts and comments that other members see, irrespective of the size of that community. Reddit’s algorithms are geared to focus the attention of a subreddit’s subscribers on a small proportion of submitted content. Deciding which content becomes highly visible is the domain of voting users (with moderators essentially having a veto through their power to delete content). As voting is anonymous, the decisions that this mass of voting users make are always ambiguous and subject to speculation. When submitting content, a community member’s contributions are judged by silent voting users. Any direct replies are likely to be from unrecognised pseudonyms, with only a small number of members achieving enough visibility to be recognised by others. The experience of contributing on reddit is always of interacting with a collective that can never be fully known.
6.1 Collective intelligence
Subreddit communities can grow to large memberships and high activity levels relatively quickly. Whether these communities exhibit collective intelligence depends on the definition one uses. When the definition emphasises the collective, I would argue that /r/SFP and /r/the_donald meet the criteria of definitions like Smith’s (
1994)—“a group of human beings (carrying) out a task as if the group, itself, were a coherent, intelligent organism working with one mind rather than a collection of independent agents”. Other definitions (e.g., Hiltz and Turoff
1978) focus on making better decisions than any group member could have made on their own, the subreddits considered here cannot be said to meet that criteria, and the shallow nature of post voting on reddit means that decisions about which posts to broadcast are unlikely to be the best possible decisions.
What is clearer is that members of the /r/SFP and /r/the_donald communities were able to achieve things together which they would not have been able to achieve on their own. The most ubiquitous of these achievements was to broadcast positive content about their candidate to reddit users beyond their own subreddits, and in doing so increase the size of their communities. Both communities also assembled content that could be used to argue the case for their candidate, helping their members to become more effective supporters. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that members also shared content from the subreddits through other social media channels like their facebook and twitter accounts, but this would be difficult to substantiate and quantify.
There are many similarities between the type of content that was selected for broadcast on /r/SFP and /r/the_donald. Perhaps the broadest difference between the two communities was in their aims, /r/SFP quickly reached an understanding that promoting Sanders on reddit was “preaching to the choir” and put a lot of effort into outreach beyond reddit, and supporting Sanders’ campaign financially. /r/the_donald’s aims appeared much more reddit-centric, carving out some territory for Trump on a platform where there had previously been little sign of support for his candidacy.
6.2 The common good
There is little doubt that the members of these communities felt that the candidate they supported was the right choice for President, and so from their perspective acting to increase the chance of their candidate winning was acting for the common good (of citizens of the United States, at least). If increasing the chance that the “right” candidate is elected can be considered acting for the common good, then the question of whether each community was acting in the broader common good is intractable, as it is likely to be in any manifestation of collective intelligence that relates directly to politics.
A subreddit community could also be said to be acting for the common good if the collective filtering of content resulted in only unbiased and highly reliable information being broadcast. Neither /r/SFP or /r/the_donald met this criterion, but that is not surprising because it was never their aim.
Both of these subreddits are ‘echo chambers’ (Sunstein
2009), almost by definition, because they set, and moderators enforced, strict rules about the nature of allowed content. The literature on the public sphere (Habermas
1991), and the potential fragmentation and balkanization of public discourse (Sunstein
2009), is key to understanding reddit’s broader social impact. Each of the site’s 87,000 subreddits is potentially a section in a user’s ‘Daily Me’—Negroponte’s (
1996) concept of a newspaper that was tailored to the interests and opinions of its reader. Each subreddit also demonstrates the characteristics of an echo chamber. There is a feedback loop whereby popular posts and comments are broadcast widely, defining the subreddit’s identity and educating members on what kind of content they should submit if they want to be successful contributors. The areas of agreement between members are accentuated through the broadcasting mechanism, and this is likely to exacerbate the polarisation of views that already occurs when people participate in like-minded communities (Sunstein
2002).
The /r/SFP community sometimes wrestled with the problems of being an echo chamber (as evidenced by many comments asking whether the subreddit and its content was distorting members’ perspective on Sanders’ likelihood of obtaining the Democratic nomination). /r/the_donald has embraced this principle and sought only to make their subreddit a more effective echo chamber, echoing loudly enough to be heard by neighbouring communities. On /r/the_donald members were even allowed to question the core assumption that Donald Trump should be the next president of the United States, and scepticism about the veracity of any pro-Trump messages or materials was not well received.
The interactions between /r/the_donald and other subreddit communities suggest that ‘balkanization’, identified in previous research as a likely outcome (Mills
2014), is an ongoing and perhaps accelerating process on reddit. The loose boundaries between communities that allow members of one community to see, vote, and post in the space of another without actually joining complicate this picture further. When a post or comment is perceived to have an unusual score, this often prompts speculation that something underhand is happening, like members of an opposing community ‘invading’ the subreddit.
If we conceive of reddit as a kind of public sphere (Habermas
1991), /r/the_donald can be understood as a subaltern counterpublic—“parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counterdiscourses to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs” (Fraser
1990: 67). This description fits with the observations of /r/the_donald presented here. As a subaltern counterpublic, the unusual thing about /r/the_donald is that it could gain access to mechanisms that broadcast its discourse to the site’s majority of more liberally minded users, who had little sympathy for Trump or his policies.
Reddit the platform is largely agnostic with regard to the type of communities it supports, and some of these communities are to the detriment of the common good. There is list of subreddits that have been banned over the years because they catered to objectionable content or the behaviour of their members was problematic in some other way (e.g., /r/jailbait for sexualised images of minors, /r/creepshots for surreptitiously taken images of women in public, and /r/fatpeoplehate for ridicule and hatred of overweight people). /r/fatpeoplehate warrants a particular mention because when it was banned this provoked a revolt among a segment of reddit’s users (Dewey
2015), with one of the hallmarks of this revolt being those users’ capacity to up-vote vitriolic and offensive posts to the top of /r/all, despite the fact that the subreddits they created to do to this were being banned almost as quickly as they were created. This is in some ways reminiscent of /r/the_donald’s capacity to punch above its weight of subscribers when it came to pushing posts onto /r/all.
There are many active subreddits which do not aim to serve the common good, and many for which the collective’s only purpose is to entertain its members. There are some subreddits that seek to inform about or discuss a topic (e.g., /r/AskScience, /r/AskReddit) or share user generated content (e.g., /r/AdviceAnimals, /r/dataisbeautiful), and there are some which are established (or co-opted) as a tool through which a community works toward a common purpose. /r/SFP and /r/the_donald were established to pursue a certain end, previously large default subreddits like /r/politics and /r/technology have been co-opted in campaigns against SOPA and in favour of Wikileaks (Mills
2014). Anti-SOPA activism sprung up on a number of different subreddits over a short period of time. As such, collective action was conducted on a much more ad hoc basis—with post and comment voting being used as governance mechanisms in the absence of designated leaders (Mills and Fish
2015).
The /r/SFP and /r/the_donald communities had clear leadership roles (moderators) and a set of rules that were enforced. Moderators on /r/SFP at several points made posts about new initiatives in the subreddit or attempting to organise members’ efforts (e.g., redd.it/ 34ez82). /r/SFP represents a more ‘managed’ intelligence. It is however clear that a lot of the community’s ‘sensing’ and ‘reasoning’ happened at the level of the collective, mediated through the post and comment voting systems. /r/the_donald was also actively managed by the moderators, who didn’t attempt to organise in the same way as /r/SFP moderators, but did lay down and enforce rules about the nature of the discourse, and for a period guide members to up-vote certain posts by adding these as “stickies” at the top of the subreddit.
The adoption of sli.mg as preferred image host by /r/the_donald (Sect.
6) offers an interesting insight into how subreddit communities can modify their collective behaviour over time. This change was not dictated or enforced by moderators, but instead came about because posts suggesting this change were frequently submitted, up-voted and broadcast by the community. The capacity of a subreddit community to make a reasoned judgment and alter their behaviour accordingly has been observed on reddit on a few occasions (Mills
2014). This kind of evolution of subreddit collectives, as they choose which messages to broadcast to themselves, is probably happening in subtle ways on an ongoing basis. The sli.mg scenario just happened to be one where it was easy to track whether the community were following through with their collectively endorsed suggestion.
A significant barrier to understanding how reddit functions, and how its approach might be adapted to serve some purposes more effectively, is the anonymity of voting. Votes are what determine how the thousands of submitted posts and comments are displayed, but they are obfuscated. In 2009 reddit’s administrators provided me with anonymised post voting data for the month of March, 20% of these votes were cast within 10 s of the user’s previous vote, and 8% were cast within 2 s of the user’s previous vote. These quick votes were more likely to be cast on new posts (giving them more influence on posts’ success), and a small minority of highly active voters accounted for a large proportion of these quick early votes.
The way that reddit’s voting system works, or at least the way that it is used, makes it more suited to handling content that can be appraised and voted on very quickly. If we compare a hypothetical user assessing articles for an hour who reads and votes on one article per minute, to another user who scans the titles of posts and votes every 5 s, the second user will exert 12 times more influence through their votes than the first. This gives an advantage to shallow content that can be easily consumed, and gives power to users who make shallow decisions based on the title of a post alone without even following the link.
There are a number of possible interventions that may enable reddit to produce more considered judgments about submitted content: (1) limit the number of votes each user can cast in a period, (2) decrease the weight a user’s vote carries as they vote more frequently in a period, or (3) make votes a matter of public record. For as long as votes are unlimited and anonymous, users who are minded to make an impact on reddit’s collective decisions can increase their influence simply by voting frequently in the right places.
The distribution of score between posts on /r/the_donald, and the estimates of voting activity on different pages, suggest that members of this community may have been aiming to maximise the impact of /r/the_donald through blanket up-voting of posts, especially new or rising posts. Without access to voting data it is impossible to tell, but there is clearly an opportunity to have more of an effect on reddit by voting in a certain way. It is also quite clear that as a community /r/the_donald is not averse to gaming systems, for example by using their subreddit to attempt “google bombings” (still happening in October—redd.it/56l0b4).
Subreddit communities on reddit can wield a certain kind of power, and as the site’s user-base grows so does this power. It is, therefore, troubling that these communities do not have to exhibit collective intelligence to collectively wield power, and that the platform seems equally suited to serving ends which oppose, as well as promote, the common good. There is a need for further research into the strengths and weaknesses of platforms like reddit, which is based on a thorough understanding of how the platform functions, in practice, as it is used. The anonymity of voting on reddit represents a significant obstacle to understanding how it works, if administrators were to release anonymised voting data or some statistics about how users are voting, this would be of enormous benefit to researchers studying the platform. Reddit’s approach to large scale many-to-many communication has some merits, and it may be possible to tweak certain parameters such that a similar approach can be fruitfully deployed to the production of resources that have different qualities.