5 ms·

No, we need to just cut our losses with reddit altogether. Each year, it just gets more political and more authoritarian. Even if you find a good subreddit, its

by swebs 6y ago

No, we need to just cut our losses with reddit altogether. Each year, it just gets more political and more authoritarian. Even if you find a good subreddit, its only a matter of time before it gets usurped by the usual powermods that each control 300+ subreddits and bans anyone who disagrees. The admins will never do anything about them since it's hundreds of people willing to perform free labor for them.

bun_at_work 6y ago
big fan of FPH? e: Sorry that's a bit weak of a comment. The deal with reddit authoritarianism makes sense. They don't want to support hate-filled communities that promote violence, crime, or misinformation. They are free to do whatever they want. Most of the people I see complaining about reddit had their favorite hate-filled subreddits banned.
- geerlingguy 6y ago
  That's not at all true; most Reddit subs have become their own circlejerk about US politics (even those that you'd think would be far from political), and frankly it's annoying.
- swebs 6y ago
  You're making a lot of incorrect assumptions. Read the parent comment again. I clearly explained the problems.
specialist 6y ago
Moderation has always been a pain point. Source: was a junior moderator on CompuServe, was the hub for a BBS network. I determined in late 80s that editor was most valuable function for coping with "infoglut" (term coined by BYTE Magazine?). The editor role's is to filter and explain. Today we'd call that function or role curation. The only thing that has changed is the scale. Any criticism of moderation you could possibly articulate has already been pile driven into the deep firmament by legions of people before you. FWIW, I'm personally familiar with a handful of sites that do moderation well. HN, ravelry.org, r/askhistorians, metafilter. There's certainly others. I'd LOVE for some academic ethnographers anthropologists to try to explain how and why and when moderation seems to work well. In the style of Clay Shirky or Michael Lewis, making stuff obvious once someone points it out.

by swebs 6y ago

bun_at_work 6y ago

big fan of FPH? e: Sorry that's a bit weak of a comment. The deal with reddit authoritarianism makes sense. They don't want to support hate-filled communities that promote violence, crime, or misinformation. They are free to do whatever they want. Most of the people I see complaining about reddit had their favorite hate-filled subreddits banned.

geerlingguy 6y ago
That's not at all true; most Reddit subs have become their own circlejerk about US politics (even those that you'd think would be far from political), and frankly it's annoying.
swebs 6y ago
You're making a lot of incorrect assumptions. Read the parent comment again. I clearly explained the problems.

specialist 6y ago

Moderation has always been a pain point. Source: was a junior moderator on CompuServe, was the hub for a BBS network. I determined in late 80s that editor was most valuable function for coping with "infoglut" (term coined by BYTE Magazine?). The editor role's is to filter and explain. Today we'd call that function or role curation. The only thing that has changed is the scale. Any criticism of moderation you could possibly articulate has already been pile driven into the deep firmament by legions of people before you. FWIW, I'm personally familiar with a handful of sites that do moderation well. HN, ravelry.org, r/askhistorians, metafilter. There's certainly others. I'd LOVE for some academic ethnographers anthropologists to try to explain how and why and when moderation seems to work well. In the style of Clay Shirky or Michael Lewis, making stuff obvious once someone points it out.