3 ms·

"Great content" === what are you referring to exactly? The left-wing propaganda that dominates the front page, passed off as "news" or "science"?

buu700 5y ago
Offhand, /r/legaladvice, /r/AskHistorians, and /r/AskScience stand out as being heavily moderated to the benefit of overall content quality. I don't see how any of those would be political propaganda (left-wing or otherwise).
- Blikkentrekker 5y ago
  I have never tried the latter two, but the first one is a very good example of a notoriously bad advice subreddit that almost all lawyers dislike for spreading constant misinformation, and often even seeing people that say the correct thing be banned by the moderators. There are almost no actual lawyers on that subreddit for two reasons: A) actual lawyers would like to see compensation for their expertise; B) in many jurisdictions, lawyers are not allowed to give legal advice without establishing a formal attorney–client relationship.
  - mustacheemperor 5y ago
    The latter two subreddits really do have excellent content, they are worth checking out. /r/legaladvice is so bad there is actually a subreddit dedicated to discussing what's posted there, /r/bestoflegaladvice. There's more attorneys in that sub than the actual legal advice sub, where a surprising amount of advice is either blatantly wrong or essentially "just tell the police everything, they'll help." /r/audiophile and /r/wine are two other well moderated subreddits, where the discussion has remained relatively focused and high quality even as the communities have grown, because the moderators aggressively prune low-effort and unrelated content. There was big drama, once upon a time, when /r/audiophile banned anything headphone related.
  - buu700 5y ago
    Interesting, this is the first I'm hearing about that. Typically users will state whether or not they're lawyers, and if so the degree to which they're familiar with the OP's jurisdiction, and threads will often be locked and/or littered with removed comments for the reason "bad advice". Often, the only advice users will receive is to go see a lawyer. Based on all that, it seemed pretty solid to me. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if I had to guess it's probably more a case of being hit-or-miss than entirely bad. Even a minority of bad advice would stand out to a lawyer in the same way that >=1% of wrong information in a tech publication would stand out to most of us here, particularly if the victims of said bad advice were in serious situations. (IANAL or an active user of /r/legaladvice. I just pop in every so often when an interesting thread hits my front page, so whatever I'm exposed to is presumably better quality and more actively moderated than what's average for the sub.)
- sireat 5y ago
  I stopped going to /r/AskHistorians because often the only allowed answers were badly sourced. This is especially prevalent on events that are still relatively recent (last 40-50 years). Second, it really is /r/AskHistorians ONLY, you are not allowed to mention any personal anecdata (ie participating in the fall of Berlin Wall etc.) Even worse you are not allowed to attempt to provide official primary sources. There was a question on WW2 Soviet tank production and German preparedness. I was not allowed to link in secondary comment Hitler-Mannerheim talks where they talked about this very issue! Mod reasoning: not enough context...

buu700 5y ago

Offhand, /r/legaladvice, /r/AskHistorians, and /r/AskScience stand out as being heavily moderated to the benefit of overall content quality. I don't see how any of those would be political propaganda (left-wing or otherwise).

Blikkentrekker 5y ago
I have never tried the latter two, but the first one is a very good example of a notoriously bad advice subreddit that almost all lawyers dislike for spreading constant misinformation, and often even seeing people that say the correct thing be banned by the moderators. There are almost no actual lawyers on that subreddit for two reasons: A) actual lawyers would like to see compensation for their expertise; B) in many jurisdictions, lawyers are not allowed to give legal advice without establishing a formal attorney–client relationship.
- mustacheemperor 5y ago
  The latter two subreddits really do have excellent content, they are worth checking out. /r/legaladvice is so bad there is actually a subreddit dedicated to discussing what's posted there, /r/bestoflegaladvice. There's more attorneys in that sub than the actual legal advice sub, where a surprising amount of advice is either blatantly wrong or essentially "just tell the police everything, they'll help." /r/audiophile and /r/wine are two other well moderated subreddits, where the discussion has remained relatively focused and high quality even as the communities have grown, because the moderators aggressively prune low-effort and unrelated content. There was big drama, once upon a time, when /r/audiophile banned anything headphone related.
- buu700 5y ago
  Interesting, this is the first I'm hearing about that. Typically users will state whether or not they're lawyers, and if so the degree to which they're familiar with the OP's jurisdiction, and threads will often be locked and/or littered with removed comments for the reason "bad advice". Often, the only advice users will receive is to go see a lawyer. Based on all that, it seemed pretty solid to me. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if I had to guess it's probably more a case of being hit-or-miss than entirely bad. Even a minority of bad advice would stand out to a lawyer in the same way that >=1% of wrong information in a tech publication would stand out to most of us here, particularly if the victims of said bad advice were in serious situations. (IANAL or an active user of /r/legaladvice. I just pop in every so often when an interesting thread hits my front page, so whatever I'm exposed to is presumably better quality and more actively moderated than what's average for the sub.)
sireat 5y ago
I stopped going to /r/AskHistorians because often the only allowed answers were badly sourced. This is especially prevalent on events that are still relatively recent (last 40-50 years). Second, it really is /r/AskHistorians ONLY, you are not allowed to mention any personal anecdata (ie participating in the fall of Berlin Wall etc.) Even worse you are not allowed to attempt to provide official primary sources. There was a question on WW2 Soviet tank production and German preparedness. I was not allowed to link in secondary comment Hitler-Mannerheim talks where they talked about this very issue! Mod reasoning: not enough context...