3 ms·

Additionally, Reddit stopped allowing what Huffman calls “post manipulation” to highlight certain content. A certain degree of wise curation can be highly bene

Additionally, Reddit stopped allowing what Huffman calls “post manipulation” to highlight certain content. A certain degree of wise curation can be highly beneficial. We should all know that here. However, there is an accountability problem. Highly popular social media groups aggregate power, and power corrupts. it's impossible to compete with subreddits sitting on common names, like "science". Reddit should allow for curation-heavy groups, but these should be billed specifically as curation-heavy groups and they should compete with other groups. Something like /r/science shouldn't get to do that. Abuse of moderator power is one of Reddit's biggest problems. I'd say it's social media's biggest problem, but change moderator to insider.

masklinn 8y ago
> Reddit should allow for curation-heavy groups, but these should be billed specifically as curation-heavy groups and they should compete with other groups. Something like /r/science shouldn't get to do that. /r/science should absolutely get to do that. And it's unmistakably up-front about the heavy moderation[0], much like /r/history[1] and other high-quality subreddits. IME that tends to be the dividing line between heavy moderation generating the site's best content and the worst: how clear, up-front and consistently applied the subreddit's moderation rules are. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_submission_rules https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_submission_... [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/history/wiki/index#wiki_rules https://www.reddit.com/r/history/wiki/index#wiki_rules
- stcredzero 8y ago
  /r/science should absolutely get to do that. I should clarify here. If a specific general topic subreddit like /r/science uses heavy moderation to make the best science-oriented subreddit, then this is great. There is a problem, however, when interests outside of the specific general topic start to leak in. A key example is politics. If /r/science suppresses global warming denialism, I'd say this is all well and good. The lion's share of global warming denialism is simply a misleading misrepresentation of science. However, let's suppose hypothetically that /r/science started to suppress all mention of studies showing there is some influence of sexual dimorphism, this would be ideologically driven bad science. (A fair, non-extreme reading of nature/nurture reflects that biological reality is messy and that there is some influence from both.) How does one draw the line? There can be only one /r/science, if /r/science should become ideologically subborned and biased, it effectively makes the whole voice of reddit science ideologically biased. The same question arises for cliques and cronyism. I think /r/science should become something of an aggregation like /r/popular. This way, there isn't the temptation of power and corruption coming from the power over the generic name. Then different moderation groups can compete on an even playing field by their merits, like even handed-ness and intellectual honesty. EDIT: In a way, it's the same logic as a judge ruling that the president shouldn't block people on twitter. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17135945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17135945
  - masklinn 8y ago
    > A key example is politics. If /r/science suppresses global warming denialism, I'd say this is all well and good. The lion's share of global warming denialism is simply a misleading misrepresentation of science. However, let's suppose hypothetically that /r/science started to suppress all mention of studies showing there is some influence of sexual dimorphism, this would be ideologically driven bad science. That's not an example that's a strawman. > How does one draw the line? /r/science has rules which are clear and which I linked. > I think /r/science should become something of an aggregation like /r/popular. Garbage? > This way, there isn't the temptation of power and corruption coming from the power over the generic name. Then different moderation groups can compete on an even playing field by their merits, like even handed-ness and intellectual honesty. And you can't see how competition for upvote volume at the expense of everything else would lead to plummeting quality?
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      That's not an example that's a strawman. An odd thing to say, considering that the two examples have opposing left/right political vectors. I think you are reacting to this discussion as if it were an attack on /r/science. I have nothing in particular against /r/science. It's just that using the name as an example is clearer than saying /r/some-generic-subject-area. /r/science has rules which are clear and which I linked. That is a good set of rules, which seem well constructed for the purpose of excluding such bias. /r/science has the particular advantage of being attached to disciplines/fields which have good intellectual hygiene. There are other areas of general interest which have the particular disadvantage of being attached to fields where cronyism and intellectual dishonesty are rampant. And you can't see how competition for upvote volume at the expense of everything else would lead to plummeting quality? You couldn't do it with upvote volume. AI isn't yet up to the task. Perhaps moderation is the only solution. (Perhaps metamoderation?) Reddit did luck out with /r/science. Other areas drew the short straw and are highly biased and crony-moderated.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

masklinn 8y ago

> Reddit should allow for curation-heavy groups, but these should be billed specifically as curation-heavy groups and they should compete with other groups. Something like /r/science shouldn't get to do that. /r/science should absolutely get to do that. And it's unmistakably up-front about the heavy moderation[0], much like /r/history[1] and other high-quality subreddits. IME that tends to be the dividing line between heavy moderation generating the site's best content and the worst: how clear, up-front and consistently applied the subreddit's moderation rules are. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_submission_rules https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_submission_... [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/history/wiki/index#wiki_rules https://www.reddit.com/r/history/wiki/index#wiki_rules

stcredzero 8y ago
/r/science should absolutely get to do that. I should clarify here. If a specific general topic subreddit like /r/science uses heavy moderation to make the best science-oriented subreddit, then this is great. There is a problem, however, when interests outside of the specific general topic start to leak in. A key example is politics. If /r/science suppresses global warming denialism, I'd say this is all well and good. The lion's share of global warming denialism is simply a misleading misrepresentation of science. However, let's suppose hypothetically that /r/science started to suppress all mention of studies showing there is some influence of sexual dimorphism, this would be ideologically driven bad science. (A fair, non-extreme reading of nature/nurture reflects that biological reality is messy and that there is some influence from both.) How does one draw the line? There can be only one /r/science, if /r/science should become ideologically subborned and biased, it effectively makes the whole voice of reddit science ideologically biased. The same question arises for cliques and cronyism. I think /r/science should become something of an aggregation like /r/popular. This way, there isn't the temptation of power and corruption coming from the power over the generic name. Then different moderation groups can compete on an even playing field by their merits, like even handed-ness and intellectual honesty. EDIT: In a way, it's the same logic as a judge ruling that the president shouldn't block people on twitter. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17135945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17135945
- masklinn 8y ago
  > A key example is politics. If /r/science suppresses global warming denialism, I'd say this is all well and good. The lion's share of global warming denialism is simply a misleading misrepresentation of science. However, let's suppose hypothetically that /r/science started to suppress all mention of studies showing there is some influence of sexual dimorphism, this would be ideologically driven bad science. That's not an example that's a strawman. > How does one draw the line? /r/science has rules which are clear and which I linked. > I think /r/science should become something of an aggregation like /r/popular. Garbage? > This way, there isn't the temptation of power and corruption coming from the power over the generic name. Then different moderation groups can compete on an even playing field by their merits, like even handed-ness and intellectual honesty. And you can't see how competition for upvote volume at the expense of everything else would lead to plummeting quality?
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    That's not an example that's a strawman. An odd thing to say, considering that the two examples have opposing left/right political vectors. I think you are reacting to this discussion as if it were an attack on /r/science. I have nothing in particular against /r/science. It's just that using the name as an example is clearer than saying /r/some-generic-subject-area. /r/science has rules which are clear and which I linked. That is a good set of rules, which seem well constructed for the purpose of excluding such bias. /r/science has the particular advantage of being attached to disciplines/fields which have good intellectual hygiene. There are other areas of general interest which have the particular disadvantage of being attached to fields where cronyism and intellectual dishonesty are rampant. And you can't see how competition for upvote volume at the expense of everything else would lead to plummeting quality? You couldn't do it with upvote volume. AI isn't yet up to the task. Perhaps moderation is the only solution. (Perhaps metamoderation?) Reddit did luck out with /r/science. Other areas drew the short straw and are highly biased and crony-moderated.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]