7 ms·

Why just moderating? In a sense, it's every action you do that adds value to the site by drawing people in or improving their experience. When users write a co

Why just moderating? In a sense, it's every action you do that adds value to the site by drawing people in or improving their experience. When users write a comment (such as what I'm writing right now on Hacker News), they are acting as writers who generate text for people to read. When they submit a link, they are locating content for people to read. When they upvote or downvote, they are acting somewhat like editors by helping to curate content. In traditional media (a newspaper, for example), these functions would typically be performed by paid staff. In social media, it doesn't work that way. But then the whole point of social media is to interact with other people. And interaction is two-way. You could argue that the value users receive from interacting is the reason they come to the site. And consuming content is part of that value, but you could also argue that being heard is part of the value you receive as a user. When I do any of any of these things, am I doing labor by giving up my valuable time in service of the business? Or am I receiving value because the site allows me to be heard? Maybe the answer is both. Probably we should look at every aspect of the transaction. Continuing the newspaper comparison, look at letters to the editor. Does anyone argue that people who write letters to the editor are unpaid volunteers? Not that I know of, because everyone understands that people write those letters because they want their opinion to be heard. So even in traditional media there's a little precedent for this.

pimterry 7y ago
It's not about unpaid work though, it's employee-like unpaid work. https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/337123/345240 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/337123/345240 has some interesting discussion of this. In practice, that means that normal commenters or people using social media aren't relevant for two reasons: * There's minimal control over their actions from the 'employer'. There's some basic rules on what content is not allowed, but nobody says "you must write a question about Java every day". You can use the tools available however you'd like, and you have freedom over when and how you use SO/social media - there's no obligation to post with any specific frequency. That's not true for moderators: they have specific tasks they must complete, and they must continue to be active, or they lose their moderation status. * There's no permanent relationship: you can use social media/SO once, leave, and return any time you like, and leave again. This is not true for moderators.
- adrianmonk 7y ago
  Great point. It makes sense that it wouldn't just be the value you might get or give but the terms under which you do it. That's a logical distinction to make.
- zaroth 7y ago
  My karma score is pretty big evidence against the theory that there’s no permanent relationship. Users can become highly invested in particular communities! I also abide by fairly strict code of conduct / moderation policies when writing on certain platforms. If I don’t abide by the community rules my posts can be flagged or even my account banned. Paid writing is absolutely a trade, so I can’t see how any policy that sweeps up moderation can’t also equally apply to comment writing. The government has a nasty habit of taking a concept like “work” or “income” and then applying it to literally everything so that they can regulate and tax literally everything. To the point where the IRS had to define specific exceptions for family chores lest they be deemed as barter and requiring the payment of payroll taxes. Luckily in this case we have the 1st Amendment which should provide a pretty strong defense against any attempt to limit basic community social activities and the necessity of moderating those interactions. Despite the fact that [I would hope] my comments on HN accrue significant value to the HN site, and that those comments are indeed work of the kind that some people even get paid for, my 1st amendment right to post here should override the interest of the State in establishing minimum wage requirements. Would love to hear a constitutional law scholar’s thoughts on this!
  - HashHishBang 7y ago
    > To the point where the IRS had to define specific exceptions for family chores lest they be deemed as barter and requiring the payment of payroll taxes. Hold on a minute here, can you point me to where this is actually codified? I found "Publication 926 (2019), Household Employer's Tax Guide" but that doesn't seem to be quite right. Or I just didn't read enough of that rather lengthy document. > my 1st amendment right to post here should override the interest of the State in establishing minimum wage requirements I'm not sure I've ever run into a situation where constitutional law was used to continue doing a thing for free. Genuinely interesting POV there.
Spooky23 7y ago
Moderating is very different from a letter to the editor. A moderator is making editorial decisions on behalf of the company using company guidelines and standards. They are held to a set of standards as well, and released from their service if they violate them. Contributions are more like letters to the editor. The content has value to the company, but the company doesn’t exert control over either the asking or answering of questions. The whole point of Stackoverflow, which was pretty clear if you listened to the podcasts that described some of the early planning aspects of the community was that it would be self-governing. Decisions were later made to implement a Wikipedia-style moderation system, which is problematic at a for-profit company.
DoctorNick 7y ago
The fact remains that moderating forums is labor, and stack exchange receives a lot of value from that labor that the mods themselves don't see a dime of.
- davidgh 7y ago
  Yes, but ...arrgh... they are doing this of their own free will and choice, perhaps because they enjoy it, they increase their social interactions, increase their skills... etc. It seems contrary to the concept of freedom if private parties cannot engage in such a relationship, if each and both so choose.
  - snagglegaggle 7y ago
    The idea behind these laws limit the extent that people can circumvent minimum wage. It also prevents de facto enslavement or indentured servitude, but probably to a lesser degree. This type of discussion usually comes up in the context of internship positions, where federally an unpaid internship must not displace employees and must provide no value to the employer.
  - DoctorNick 7y ago
    I'm not saying that the situation is necessarily bad, or that the people who willingly do this for free are suckers. I can't speak for them, and I don't know the conditions that the moderators labor under. All I'm saying that the situation is still exploitation, no matter how you cut it. More and more businesses derive their main value from unpaid contributors, and it's something that should give us all pause.
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  I run a forum and there's no shortage of people who would happily volunteer for a mod role. You have it wrong though: they get plenty of compensation through reputation, clout, and a feeling of power over their peers and being heard and helping out in a community that they love (or some combo of these). That's why they do it. Why is that not a fair trade without money exchanging hands? Growing up, I used to mow an aging neighbor's lawn because he was basically couch-ridden. It made me feel good to help someone else out. Was I being exploited and should I have demanded payment, or was that just a fair trade that I volunteered for and could quit at any time? Or look no further than HN. Participating on this forum writing content and enriching YC's coffers is "labor". And our compensation is procrastination and venting and feeling some satisfaction for scrawling our opinions online. If we didn't like that deal, we wouldn't be here.
sah2ed 7y ago
> So even in traditional media there's a little precedent for this. There may not be a precedent in traditional media but boy there is an Internet entity that well known to us already: Wikipedia. Many forget that Wikipedia (where anyone can contribute) was part inspiration for SE as was Experts-Exchange, and Wikipedia is indeed organized as a non-profit via WikiMedia. This meta post might be the one that forces investors to re-organize SE as the social good that it is rather than as an asset that needs to be exploited.
celticmusic 7y ago
that's obfuscating the real point. Moderators are doing curation on behalf of the company, not simply using a platform to interact with other people. All reasonable people understand the difference.

pimterry 7y ago

It's not about unpaid work though, it's employee-like unpaid work. https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/337123/345240 https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/337123/345240 has some interesting discussion of this. In practice, that means that normal commenters or people using social media aren't relevant for two reasons: * There's minimal control over their actions from the 'employer'. There's some basic rules on what content is not allowed, but nobody says "you must write a question about Java every day". You can use the tools available however you'd like, and you have freedom over when and how you use SO/social media - there's no obligation to post with any specific frequency. That's not true for moderators: they have specific tasks they must complete, and they must continue to be active, or they lose their moderation status. * There's no permanent relationship: you can use social media/SO once, leave, and return any time you like, and leave again. This is not true for moderators.

adrianmonk 7y ago
Great point. It makes sense that it wouldn't just be the value you might get or give but the terms under which you do it. That's a logical distinction to make.
zaroth 7y ago
My karma score is pretty big evidence against the theory that there’s no permanent relationship. Users can become highly invested in particular communities! I also abide by fairly strict code of conduct / moderation policies when writing on certain platforms. If I don’t abide by the community rules my posts can be flagged or even my account banned. Paid writing is absolutely a trade, so I can’t see how any policy that sweeps up moderation can’t also equally apply to comment writing. The government has a nasty habit of taking a concept like “work” or “income” and then applying it to literally everything so that they can regulate and tax literally everything. To the point where the IRS had to define specific exceptions for family chores lest they be deemed as barter and requiring the payment of payroll taxes. Luckily in this case we have the 1st Amendment which should provide a pretty strong defense against any attempt to limit basic community social activities and the necessity of moderating those interactions. Despite the fact that [I would hope] my comments on HN accrue significant value to the HN site, and that those comments are indeed work of the kind that some people even get paid for, my 1st amendment right to post here should override the interest of the State in establishing minimum wage requirements. Would love to hear a constitutional law scholar’s thoughts on this!
- HashHishBang 7y ago
  > To the point where the IRS had to define specific exceptions for family chores lest they be deemed as barter and requiring the payment of payroll taxes. Hold on a minute here, can you point me to where this is actually codified? I found "Publication 926 (2019), Household Employer's Tax Guide" but that doesn't seem to be quite right. Or I just didn't read enough of that rather lengthy document. > my 1st amendment right to post here should override the interest of the State in establishing minimum wage requirements I'm not sure I've ever run into a situation where constitutional law was used to continue doing a thing for free. Genuinely interesting POV there.

Spooky23 7y ago

Moderating is very different from a letter to the editor. A moderator is making editorial decisions on behalf of the company using company guidelines and standards. They are held to a set of standards as well, and released from their service if they violate them. Contributions are more like letters to the editor. The content has value to the company, but the company doesn’t exert control over either the asking or answering of questions. The whole point of Stackoverflow, which was pretty clear if you listened to the podcasts that described some of the early planning aspects of the community was that it would be self-governing. Decisions were later made to implement a Wikipedia-style moderation system, which is problematic at a for-profit company.

DoctorNick 7y ago

The fact remains that moderating forums is labor, and stack exchange receives a lot of value from that labor that the mods themselves don't see a dime of.

davidgh 7y ago
Yes, but ...arrgh... they are doing this of their own free will and choice, perhaps because they enjoy it, they increase their social interactions, increase their skills... etc. It seems contrary to the concept of freedom if private parties cannot engage in such a relationship, if each and both so choose.
- snagglegaggle 7y ago
  The idea behind these laws limit the extent that people can circumvent minimum wage. It also prevents de facto enslavement or indentured servitude, but probably to a lesser degree. This type of discussion usually comes up in the context of internship positions, where federally an unpaid internship must not displace employees and must provide no value to the employer.
- DoctorNick 7y ago
  I'm not saying that the situation is necessarily bad, or that the people who willingly do this for free are suckers. I can't speak for them, and I don't know the conditions that the moderators labor under. All I'm saying that the situation is still exploitation, no matter how you cut it. More and more businesses derive their main value from unpaid contributors, and it's something that should give us all pause.
hombre_fatal 7y ago
I run a forum and there's no shortage of people who would happily volunteer for a mod role. You have it wrong though: they get plenty of compensation through reputation, clout, and a feeling of power over their peers and being heard and helping out in a community that they love (or some combo of these). That's why they do it. Why is that not a fair trade without money exchanging hands? Growing up, I used to mow an aging neighbor's lawn because he was basically couch-ridden. It made me feel good to help someone else out. Was I being exploited and should I have demanded payment, or was that just a fair trade that I volunteered for and could quit at any time? Or look no further than HN. Participating on this forum writing content and enriching YC's coffers is "labor". And our compensation is procrastination and venting and feeling some satisfaction for scrawling our opinions online. If we didn't like that deal, we wouldn't be here.

sah2ed 7y ago

> So even in traditional media there's a little precedent for this. There may not be a precedent in traditional media but boy there is an Internet entity that well known to us already: Wikipedia. Many forget that Wikipedia (where anyone can contribute) was part inspiration for SE as was Experts-Exchange, and Wikipedia is indeed organized as a non-profit via WikiMedia. This meta post might be the one that forces investors to re-organize SE as the social good that it is rather than as an asset that needs to be exploited.

celticmusic 7y ago

that's obfuscating the real point. Moderators are doing curation on behalf of the company, not simply using a platform to interact with other people. All reasonable people understand the difference.