10 ms·

> the drama it caused is way overblown People have been arrested because of Reddit posts they made. If the admins can edit comments without any indication to t

> the drama it caused is way overblown People have been arrested because of Reddit posts they made. If the admins can edit comments without any indication to the users... They can falsely accuse you of a crime. They can also identify you and ban you specially if you do or say things not in alignment with the founders of Reddit(criticizing Serina Williams got a subreddit banned recently).

throwaway2048 8y ago
Admins are always 100% going to be capable of editing posts on a website, after all they can just edit the database. This "proof" they have the ability to do that somehow signaling danger is nothing short of ridiculous.
- ddingus 8y ago
  No it is not. Users need to know the conversation is coherent. Real. Reddit is not always casual chat. There is hide, delete and edit with a clear history for all involved. Touching the database changes the record of reality without leaving history of it happening. The database edit is what drove the spez controversy.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    Again, this is always possible, its possible on HN, its possible on gmail, its possible on every single site on the internet, that is how the technology works. This isn't some kind of dark secret backdoor spez built into the reddit codebase. Immature and stupid action maybe, but some kind of scary sentinel of how admin power can be uniquely abused at reddit, it isn't.
    - ddingus 8y ago
      And again, being possible is not the issue. Of course it is possible. That it was done, and why is a big issue. And it did not need to be done, nor that way. A direct edit can make sense, and when it does, there is also every reason to communicate why. The why of what spez did is a significant contributor to the controversy. Lack of a record and no communication, until forced is another significant contributor.
    - kps 8y ago
      It's not always possible — secure audit trails can exist. The web cowboy world just doesn't care.
      - throwaway2048 8y ago
        Its not possible to build a technical system that those building it can not themselves subvert if they so choose. The argument here isn't if he should have did it, he obviously shouldn't have. The argument is about how incredibly overdone the outrage over the specific circumstances is.
  - threatofrain 8y ago
    This is also the same argument people make about evidence from seized hard drives, but nobody cares.
    - ddingus 8y ago
      Well, making it without proof is a shallow defense. People do care. And this is a basic trust problem inherent to computing. Ever notice how there is often redundancy and history present? This is why. Another place this shows up is electronic voting. Lack of personally identifiable records leave people in a position of forced trust, unable to know the record is accurate. Motive plays a role here. Spez had a childish, bigger dick type ego motive. Untrustworthy. The same exact thing done to protect someone, and done with rational communication would be far less controversial. As for the hard drive, the defense must speak to motive and it must be compelling, or we are all likely to trust the person doing that necessary work. Your comparison is germane, but too simple, in my view.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- isoskeles 8y ago
  A site / business / organization gets big enough, they usually start locking down database access. Even a technical CEO shouldn’t have the ability to go into a database and edit comments on a site like reddit (specifically of its size). If they want the ability to edit a comment’s body, they should have a tool for it.
intopieces 8y ago
That moderators can edit posts on Reddit throws into question the validity of state actors using it as evidence to arrest people but doesn't make it any more dangerous than it was from the start.
- ddingus 8y ago
  Moderators cannot edit posts. An admin can, and when done with the official tool, the edit is marked, known. What bothered people was spez editing the actual database, no timestamp, etc...
- krapp 8y ago
  I would assume state actors would need something more than a screenshot of a Reddit post to make a case either way.
  - zhengyi13 8y ago
    Keep in mind that now two states have proposed laws that would require inspection of the social media accounts of any potential gun purchaser. There's zero specification in either law around oversight into or appeal of any decision to disallow a gun purchase on the basis of what the reviewer finds.
    - krapp 8y ago
      Fair enough, but have they passed and survived judicial challenges, though? A proposed law isn't a law, after all. Anyone can propose anything.
IvyMike 8y ago
> If the admins can edit comments without any indication to the users... I feel like this is possible on every website ever made.
- beaner 8y ago
  But in how many cases has a CEO of a multi-million-user site done it themselves, off the cuff? It means there's no oversight. Oversight isn't expected if you're using Joe Schmoe's 2 person game forum. It's expected at Reddit.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    CEO asks underlings for access to production servers, for whatever reason. How many are going to say no?
    - phamilton 8y ago
      Who would say yes? If the company is public, all of this is covered under SOX compliance or other regulations. If you're truly going to get fired by the CEO for not complying, better that than be the one thrown under the bus when the SEC (or other gov body) comes knocking.
      - lostlogin 8y ago
        Did regulators come knocking? If so, I wasn’t aware of that and it isn’t mention in the write ups I’ve seen.
      - nradov 8y ago
        SOX compliance is about financial systems, not about some random discussion forum.
        phamilton 8y ago
        It's very much about access to production data, in addition to financial systems.
frogpelt 8y ago
Perhaps the problem in that case is the government overstepping it's responsibilities. I firmly believe people should be held responsible for what they say and do but there has to be freedom to say things that are offensive or scary or there's no protection for any speech.
Anechoic 8y ago
criticizing Serina Williams got a subreddit banned recently Sincere question: Was it actually criticism of Serena Williams ("she exhibited poor behavior", "she's lost a step", "her fashion sense sucks", etc) or was it abuse ("she's a man", "she's an ugly pig", etc)? Banning because of the former is unacceptable, but I see no reason why we would expect her husband to permit the latter on his platform.
- lstodd 8y ago
  Maybe because this was not the way he marketed his platform in the first place? Or, well, not marketed, but, let's say, allowed widespread perception of. Although I must confess I'm no expert on Reddit. After all, real men discuss Serena on 4chan and post gun videos on Pornhub /s
- tzjmetron 8y ago
  >Banning because of the former is unacceptable, but I see no reason why we would expect her husband to permit the latter on his platform. This makes no sense at all - Reddit is a business, even if their model consists of free users. These users generate traffic, content, and ad-money.
- cotelletta 8y ago
  Talking shit about people behind their back is not abuse. At most it can be libel/slander, of which none of your examples qualify. She's also not a particularly worthy example, given her meltdown at that tennis tournament, for which tons of people tried to made ideological excuses (herself included) and which involved her actually being abusive to the ref's face. What it is is rich and powerful people using their influence to step on the little guy, and that behavior trickling down in a bizarre quest for faux-vindication by petty commissars. The kind of person who wants to be a Reddit mod on a big subreddit is not your average Joe. If they're not outright getting paid under the table by interested actors, they're doing it for the power trip.
  - Anechoic 8y ago
    Interesting comments, but I'm not sure what it has to do with my post.
skybrian 8y ago
This is another way of saying that the power to edit other people's posts is pretty darn scary. Which it is. But other than one vivid demonstration, it seems it's potential, not actual? A violation of trust, but not repeated? What could anyone do about it, other than promising not to do it again? I guess there could be some kind of certificate transparency thing? Other people could make copies of messages and verify that they haven't changed?

throwaway2048 8y ago

Admins are always 100% going to be capable of editing posts on a website, after all they can just edit the database. This "proof" they have the ability to do that somehow signaling danger is nothing short of ridiculous.

ddingus 8y ago
No it is not. Users need to know the conversation is coherent. Real. Reddit is not always casual chat. There is hide, delete and edit with a clear history for all involved. Touching the database changes the record of reality without leaving history of it happening. The database edit is what drove the spez controversy.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Again, this is always possible, its possible on HN, its possible on gmail, its possible on every single site on the internet, that is how the technology works. This isn't some kind of dark secret backdoor spez built into the reddit codebase. Immature and stupid action maybe, but some kind of scary sentinel of how admin power can be uniquely abused at reddit, it isn't.
  - ddingus 8y ago
    And again, being possible is not the issue. Of course it is possible. That it was done, and why is a big issue. And it did not need to be done, nor that way. A direct edit can make sense, and when it does, there is also every reason to communicate why. The why of what spez did is a significant contributor to the controversy. Lack of a record and no communication, until forced is another significant contributor.
  - kps 8y ago
    It's not always possible — secure audit trails can exist. The web cowboy world just doesn't care.
    - throwaway2048 8y ago
      Its not possible to build a technical system that those building it can not themselves subvert if they so choose. The argument here isn't if he should have did it, he obviously shouldn't have. The argument is about how incredibly overdone the outrage over the specific circumstances is.
- threatofrain 8y ago
  This is also the same argument people make about evidence from seized hard drives, but nobody cares.
  - ddingus 8y ago
    Well, making it without proof is a shallow defense. People do care. And this is a basic trust problem inherent to computing. Ever notice how there is often redundancy and history present? This is why. Another place this shows up is electronic voting. Lack of personally identifiable records leave people in a position of forced trust, unable to know the record is accurate. Motive plays a role here. Spez had a childish, bigger dick type ego motive. Untrustworthy. The same exact thing done to protect someone, and done with rational communication would be far less controversial. As for the hard drive, the defense must speak to motive and it must be compelling, or we are all likely to trust the person doing that necessary work. Your comparison is germane, but too simple, in my view.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
isoskeles 8y ago
A site / business / organization gets big enough, they usually start locking down database access. Even a technical CEO shouldn’t have the ability to go into a database and edit comments on a site like reddit (specifically of its size). If they want the ability to edit a comment’s body, they should have a tool for it.

intopieces 8y ago

That moderators can edit posts on Reddit throws into question the validity of state actors using it as evidence to arrest people but doesn't make it any more dangerous than it was from the start.

ddingus 8y ago
Moderators cannot edit posts. An admin can, and when done with the official tool, the edit is marked, known. What bothered people was spez editing the actual database, no timestamp, etc...
krapp 8y ago
I would assume state actors would need something more than a screenshot of a Reddit post to make a case either way.
- zhengyi13 8y ago
  Keep in mind that now two states have proposed laws that would require inspection of the social media accounts of any potential gun purchaser. There's zero specification in either law around oversight into or appeal of any decision to disallow a gun purchase on the basis of what the reviewer finds.
  - krapp 8y ago
    Fair enough, but have they passed and survived judicial challenges, though? A proposed law isn't a law, after all. Anyone can propose anything.

IvyMike 8y ago

> If the admins can edit comments without any indication to the users... I feel like this is possible on every website ever made.

beaner 8y ago
But in how many cases has a CEO of a multi-million-user site done it themselves, off the cuff? It means there's no oversight. Oversight isn't expected if you're using Joe Schmoe's 2 person game forum. It's expected at Reddit.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  CEO asks underlings for access to production servers, for whatever reason. How many are going to say no?
  - phamilton 8y ago
    Who would say yes? If the company is public, all of this is covered under SOX compliance or other regulations. If you're truly going to get fired by the CEO for not complying, better that than be the one thrown under the bus when the SEC (or other gov body) comes knocking.
    - lostlogin 8y ago
      Did regulators come knocking? If so, I wasn’t aware of that and it isn’t mention in the write ups I’ve seen.
    - nradov 8y ago
      SOX compliance is about financial systems, not about some random discussion forum.
      - phamilton 8y ago
        It's very much about access to production data, in addition to financial systems.

frogpelt 8y ago

Perhaps the problem in that case is the government overstepping it's responsibilities. I firmly believe people should be held responsible for what they say and do but there has to be freedom to say things that are offensive or scary or there's no protection for any speech.

Anechoic 8y ago

criticizing Serina Williams got a subreddit banned recently Sincere question: Was it actually criticism of Serena Williams ("she exhibited poor behavior", "she's lost a step", "her fashion sense sucks", etc) or was it abuse ("she's a man", "she's an ugly pig", etc)? Banning because of the former is unacceptable, but I see no reason why we would expect her husband to permit the latter on his platform.

lstodd 8y ago
Maybe because this was not the way he marketed his platform in the first place? Or, well, not marketed, but, let's say, allowed widespread perception of. Although I must confess I'm no expert on Reddit. After all, real men discuss Serena on 4chan and post gun videos on Pornhub /s
tzjmetron 8y ago
>Banning because of the former is unacceptable, but I see no reason why we would expect her husband to permit the latter on his platform. This makes no sense at all - Reddit is a business, even if their model consists of free users. These users generate traffic, content, and ad-money.
cotelletta 8y ago
Talking shit about people behind their back is not abuse. At most it can be libel/slander, of which none of your examples qualify. She's also not a particularly worthy example, given her meltdown at that tennis tournament, for which tons of people tried to made ideological excuses (herself included) and which involved her actually being abusive to the ref's face. What it is is rich and powerful people using their influence to step on the little guy, and that behavior trickling down in a bizarre quest for faux-vindication by petty commissars. The kind of person who wants to be a Reddit mod on a big subreddit is not your average Joe. If they're not outright getting paid under the table by interested actors, they're doing it for the power trip.
- Anechoic 8y ago
  Interesting comments, but I'm not sure what it has to do with my post.

skybrian 8y ago

This is another way of saying that the power to edit other people's posts is pretty darn scary. Which it is. But other than one vivid demonstration, it seems it's potential, not actual? A violation of trust, but not repeated? What could anyone do about it, other than promising not to do it again? I guess there could be some kind of certificate transparency thing? Other people could make copies of messages and verify that they haven't changed?