5 ms·

Yes you are. Social organizers, advertisers, trend setters, ect frequently get free product, kickbacks or some money for their 'work'. That's the work you have

Yes you are. Social organizers, advertisers, trend setters, ect frequently get free product, kickbacks or some money for their 'work'. That's the work you have done. It's not your intent to do work and it's probably not the pub owners desire to pay for meetup organizers, but regardless of your and the pub owner's intent, work has happened.

cecilpl2 6y ago
Is it not possible that the situation is a win-win for all parties and that all parties feel like they are well-compensated in terms of the value they've received, and that therefore no money actually needs to exchange hands? You may as well ask why people volunteer their time at all.
- friendlybus 6y ago
  Hey I'm not saying money needs to change hands. I'm just pointing out it's work, like in the physics sense. Something valuable has happened, both in the business sense and social sense, but obviously the priority for parent poster is the socializing. Benefitting from socializing is not worth the reddit moderator role is my opinion, under the psychological load they operate in.
- oarsinsync 6y ago
  Both points are valid I think. It's fair that both parties feel like they're benefiting, so no direct transaction needs to occur. Comparing this to volunteering generally isn't the same. I volunteer with local registered charities because I believe in their mission, and the volunteer work I do is directly impacting and improving the lives of the people I'm working with. Which may be the crux of the GP's question. Why volunteer in the community in a way that results in a for-profit organisation monetising you for their gain, instead of finding a non-profit in your community to be volunteering your time towards? The non-profit / charity in your community's goals are more likely to be aligned with your own, than the for-profit social network.
  - toyg 6y ago
    It’s a false dichotomy. A moderator’s work primarily benefits, directly, the users, because it allows them to communicate safely. The platform only gets help indirectly. Charities often have salaried or reimbursed employees; do you volunteer in order to get their salary paid? Of course not, you do it because it helps actual users; the fact that this allows people to get paid, somehow, is an indirect benefit. Same here, really.
    - oarsinsync 6y ago
      There's a difference between a charity and a regular for-profit corporation. If the charity started stalking me to sell my data onto advertisers in order to pay the salaried staff or other stakeholders more money, I'd stop doing any work through them. The charity's mission is not maximising revenue / profits. Any VC/PE backed corporation's mission is to maximise revenue / profits at any cost.
infogulch 6y ago
Ok, so in addition to the community getting value out of it, the pub benefitted too, that's just called win-win. Why does the pub have to lose in this situation for you to be ok with the result?
- friendlybus 6y ago
  I am okay with the result. The guy asked if he was doing work, and I said yes he has done work. Why would I not be okay with that? The pub & friends situation is a win-win. A reddit moderator's free time and a toxic community is a net negative for a moderator, payment may offset the health cost.
  - infogulch 6y ago
    Individuals seem to get a lot of value out of interacting with the community, so it's not obvious to me that the moderator's sacrifice (which primarily comes from a small portion number of individuals) is unjustified.
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  They didn't really claim the inverse, just that any form of community organizing inside a private for-profit business profits the business, making it free work for them. It's one thing to organize a bake sale in a public park, but when you choose one pub over other competitors, and they profit from it, you're doing work for the pub for free. This is why experienced community managers works with businesses to get prices for the event discounted, or set up an agreement for profits to go towards the event.
  - infogulch 6y ago
    I don't disagree that incidentally involving a business in a community's activities benefits ('does work for') the business. But that doesn't mean that the business absorbs all the value a priori and the community no longer gets any value. I'm sorry I wasn't clear, this point is not directed at friendlybus, but to the general sentiment upthread (e.g. ramphastidae) that seems to assume that because reddit is benefiting from the existence of the community therefore the community cannot benefit from the existence of reddit. The underlying reason why is because individuals benefit from the community.
akiselev 6y ago
A hotel conference room costs on the order of $50-300 an hour depending on location and group size and that's without the benefit of a bar so the host has to front the money for all the drinks. Most other available venues are either just as expensive or forbid alcohol, loud noise, and so on. A four hour party would cost at least $200 plus drinks before the hosts even collect any money - or if they do, that's another cost and more risk for everyone. The option is to do "work for free" or to shell out hundreds of dollars.

cecilpl2 6y ago

Is it not possible that the situation is a win-win for all parties and that all parties feel like they are well-compensated in terms of the value they've received, and that therefore no money actually needs to exchange hands? You may as well ask why people volunteer their time at all.

friendlybus 6y ago
Hey I'm not saying money needs to change hands. I'm just pointing out it's work, like in the physics sense. Something valuable has happened, both in the business sense and social sense, but obviously the priority for parent poster is the socializing. Benefitting from socializing is not worth the reddit moderator role is my opinion, under the psychological load they operate in.
oarsinsync 6y ago
Both points are valid I think. It's fair that both parties feel like they're benefiting, so no direct transaction needs to occur. Comparing this to volunteering generally isn't the same. I volunteer with local registered charities because I believe in their mission, and the volunteer work I do is directly impacting and improving the lives of the people I'm working with. Which may be the crux of the GP's question. Why volunteer in the community in a way that results in a for-profit organisation monetising you for their gain, instead of finding a non-profit in your community to be volunteering your time towards? The non-profit / charity in your community's goals are more likely to be aligned with your own, than the for-profit social network.
- toyg 6y ago
  It’s a false dichotomy. A moderator’s work primarily benefits, directly, the users, because it allows them to communicate safely. The platform only gets help indirectly. Charities often have salaried or reimbursed employees; do you volunteer in order to get their salary paid? Of course not, you do it because it helps actual users; the fact that this allows people to get paid, somehow, is an indirect benefit. Same here, really.
  - oarsinsync 6y ago
    There's a difference between a charity and a regular for-profit corporation. If the charity started stalking me to sell my data onto advertisers in order to pay the salaried staff or other stakeholders more money, I'd stop doing any work through them. The charity's mission is not maximising revenue / profits. Any VC/PE backed corporation's mission is to maximise revenue / profits at any cost.

infogulch 6y ago

Ok, so in addition to the community getting value out of it, the pub benefitted too, that's just called win-win. Why does the pub have to lose in this situation for you to be ok with the result?

friendlybus 6y ago
I am okay with the result. The guy asked if he was doing work, and I said yes he has done work. Why would I not be okay with that? The pub & friends situation is a win-win. A reddit moderator's free time and a toxic community is a net negative for a moderator, payment may offset the health cost.
- infogulch 6y ago
  Individuals seem to get a lot of value out of interacting with the community, so it's not obvious to me that the moderator's sacrifice (which primarily comes from a small portion number of individuals) is unjustified.
three_seagrass 6y ago
They didn't really claim the inverse, just that any form of community organizing inside a private for-profit business profits the business, making it free work for them. It's one thing to organize a bake sale in a public park, but when you choose one pub over other competitors, and they profit from it, you're doing work for the pub for free. This is why experienced community managers works with businesses to get prices for the event discounted, or set up an agreement for profits to go towards the event.
- infogulch 6y ago
  I don't disagree that incidentally involving a business in a community's activities benefits ('does work for') the business. But that doesn't mean that the business absorbs all the value a priori and the community no longer gets any value. I'm sorry I wasn't clear, this point is not directed at friendlybus, but to the general sentiment upthread (e.g. ramphastidae) that seems to assume that because reddit is benefiting from the existence of the community therefore the community cannot benefit from the existence of reddit. The underlying reason why is because individuals benefit from the community.

akiselev 6y ago

A hotel conference room costs on the order of $50-300 an hour depending on location and group size and that's without the benefit of a bar so the host has to front the money for all the drinks. Most other available venues are either just as expensive or forbid alcohol, loud noise, and so on. A four hour party would cost at least $200 plus drinks before the hosts even collect any money - or if they do, that's another cost and more risk for everyone. The option is to do "work for free" or to shell out hundreds of dollars.