4 ms·

The problem with reddit isn't the admins, but that people who have managed to become moderators of prominent subreddits censor posts and thousands of rather inn

by jules 10y ago

The problem with reddit isn't the admins, but that people who have managed to become moderators of prominent subreddits censor posts and thousands of rather innocent comments. For example the Orlando terrorist attack was censored from /r/news, and when they later allowed the posts to go through they deleted most of the comments, including all comments talking about the censorship of the previous posts. They even deleted comments giving info about where to donate blood for the victims. This strategy backfired immensely when the Donald Trump subreddit ended up being the only one reporting on the news.

deadowl 10y ago
The problems would be portrayed differently depending on different subsets of the userbase. I don't like all of /r/news moderation, but unfortunately it hasn't alienated enough people for another relevant news subreddit to take its place. A lot of the people that are alienated enough end up being people that I don't want to associate with, e.g. the kind of people that post in the Donald Trump subreddit, where I was banned for commenting on a topic that stated a subscription spike on the Bernie Sanders subreddit was a result of paid actors. All I said was "Isn't that when he held an AMA?" So yea, I question authority. I think it's great to question authority. I don't like when others question authority and then will not tolerate when their own authority being questioned. From my POV, the part of Reddit's userbase that conveys that attitude, such as users in the Donald Trump subreddit, is the heart of the problem.
- jules 10y ago
  I don't agree that the Donald Trump subreddit is the heart of the problem. It's a symptom of the problem. I don't care what goes on in that subreddit. Let them have their echo chamber. The problem is huge default subreddits that purport to be neutral but actually are far from it. This is what pushes users to the extremes, one of which is the Donald Trump subreddit, which got a lot of subscribers because of this fiasco.
ythl 10y ago
> This strategy backfired immensely when the Donald Trump subreddit ended up being the only one reporting on the news. Say what you will about republicans, but they often end up being the biggest defenders of constitutional rights. Democrats on the other hand (aka "progressives") are always looking for ways to limit constitutional rights in order to create a "safer society" and stable "social climate". Just look at Europe - where "hate speech" can get you arrested or your door kicked down, and guns are completely banned.
- a_c_s 10y ago
  Depends on which parts of the constitution you look at: freedom of religion (specifically not establishing one over any other), due process, birthright citizenship (14th Amendment) are all things Republicans have attacked lately.
- vec 10y ago
  Speaking as a progressive, that's because most of us consider the US Constitution to be a means, rather than an end unto itself. We tend to make a strong distinction between Natural and Legal Rights[1] and to group the Constitution into the latter category. And Legal Rights are useful only insofar as they align with the underlying Natural Rights they support (i.e. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). Our constitution is extremely useful. It's among the best systems for protecting our rights that we as humans seem to have devised, and we disregard the wisdom it encodes at our own peril. But that doesn't mean it's either perfect or sacred. If a law is actively harming (or negligently failing to protect) the inherent worth and dignity of every human being, then that law is wrong by definition, and I've yet to hear an argument that the Bill of Rights is exempt from that analysis. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
  - rplst8 10y ago
    > We tend to make a strong distinction between Natural and Legal Rights[1] and to group the Constitution into the latter category The framers debated the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution for the simple fact that enumerating the rights made them appear though they were "granted" or in your words "Legal Rights." Furthermore, just by entertaining the idea that they should be explicitly enumerated, called into question whether they were "inalienable". However, they fully believed that those first ten amendments were "Natural Rights". In the end, they felt that enumerating them worthy, and given how the amendments are treated/respected/discussed and the litigous environment today - I'm glad they did.
bshanks 10y ago
A big problem with Reddit is the first-come, first-serve nature of claiming subreddit names. In theory anyone can start a new subreddit to provide different moderation, but in practice /r/news, /r/bitcoin, /r/programming, /r/haskell etc have a leg-up in being seen as the canonical subreddit for their topics (these are just the first examples of canonical subreddits that came to mind, i'm not taking a position on whether they are well-moderated). Perhaps subreddits should be required to have numbers after their name, eg /r/news2 (numbers 0 and 1 would be forbidden, eg no /r/news0 or /r/news1).

by jules 10y ago

deadowl 10y ago

The problems would be portrayed differently depending on different subsets of the userbase. I don't like all of /r/news moderation, but unfortunately it hasn't alienated enough people for another relevant news subreddit to take its place. A lot of the people that are alienated enough end up being people that I don't want to associate with, e.g. the kind of people that post in the Donald Trump subreddit, where I was banned for commenting on a topic that stated a subscription spike on the Bernie Sanders subreddit was a result of paid actors. All I said was "Isn't that when he held an AMA?" So yea, I question authority. I think it's great to question authority. I don't like when others question authority and then will not tolerate when their own authority being questioned. From my POV, the part of Reddit's userbase that conveys that attitude, such as users in the Donald Trump subreddit, is the heart of the problem.

jules 10y ago
I don't agree that the Donald Trump subreddit is the heart of the problem. It's a symptom of the problem. I don't care what goes on in that subreddit. Let them have their echo chamber. The problem is huge default subreddits that purport to be neutral but actually are far from it. This is what pushes users to the extremes, one of which is the Donald Trump subreddit, which got a lot of subscribers because of this fiasco.

ythl 10y ago

> This strategy backfired immensely when the Donald Trump subreddit ended up being the only one reporting on the news. Say what you will about republicans, but they often end up being the biggest defenders of constitutional rights. Democrats on the other hand (aka "progressives") are always looking for ways to limit constitutional rights in order to create a "safer society" and stable "social climate". Just look at Europe - where "hate speech" can get you arrested or your door kicked down, and guns are completely banned.

a_c_s 10y ago
Depends on which parts of the constitution you look at: freedom of religion (specifically not establishing one over any other), due process, birthright citizenship (14th Amendment) are all things Republicans have attacked lately.
vec 10y ago
Speaking as a progressive, that's because most of us consider the US Constitution to be a means, rather than an end unto itself. We tend to make a strong distinction between Natural and Legal Rights[1] and to group the Constitution into the latter category. And Legal Rights are useful only insofar as they align with the underlying Natural Rights they support (i.e. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). Our constitution is extremely useful. It's among the best systems for protecting our rights that we as humans seem to have devised, and we disregard the wisdom it encodes at our own peril. But that doesn't mean it's either perfect or sacred. If a law is actively harming (or negligently failing to protect) the inherent worth and dignity of every human being, then that law is wrong by definition, and I've yet to hear an argument that the Bill of Rights is exempt from that analysis. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
- rplst8 10y ago
  > We tend to make a strong distinction between Natural and Legal Rights[1] and to group the Constitution into the latter category The framers debated the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution for the simple fact that enumerating the rights made them appear though they were "granted" or in your words "Legal Rights." Furthermore, just by entertaining the idea that they should be explicitly enumerated, called into question whether they were "inalienable". However, they fully believed that those first ten amendments were "Natural Rights". In the end, they felt that enumerating them worthy, and given how the amendments are treated/respected/discussed and the litigous environment today - I'm glad they did.

bshanks 10y ago

A big problem with Reddit is the first-come, first-serve nature of claiming subreddit names. In theory anyone can start a new subreddit to provide different moderation, but in practice /r/news, /r/bitcoin, /r/programming, /r/haskell etc have a leg-up in being seen as the canonical subreddit for their topics (these are just the first examples of canonical subreddits that came to mind, i'm not taking a position on whether they are well-moderated). Perhaps subreddits should be required to have numbers after their name, eg /r/news2 (numbers 0 and 1 would be forbidden, eg no /r/news0 or /r/news1).