6 ms·

> This subreddit has something like 1000+ moderators and they remove any comments that doesn't fit into Reddit's very narrowly defined overton window Or the su

• dmix 4y ago
  Just curious, have you spent time looking at the type of comments getting removed? Have you looked at any of the top threads on Reveddit/Unddit with 75% of the comments gone? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how it goes way, way beyond those rules you just listed, into something that can only be described as a petty dictatorship - but with any hundred angry nerds who happened to show up playing the dictator. Zero transparency, zero due process, no one cares. This sort of excuse (blindly believing all that matters is "just don't be an asshole on the internet and you have nothing to worry about", "just follow the rules on the sidebar") is exactly how this sort of thing happens and no one bothers to look into it. If Reddit had a button to list the comments arbitrarily removed (like Google shows DMCA request removals) you can be sure the outrage would be 100x and those sidebar rules would seem meaningless besides maybe 20% of the time. I chose r/science because that's a topic that typically prides itself on caring about finding the truth, not about satisfying the ideological whims of the gatekeepers.
  • mariusor 4y ago
    You call it petty dictatorship, I call it the best moderated subreddit of the whole platform.
    • dmix 4y ago
      You just happen to be lucky enough to be within the very narrow overton window. Or at least a) believe what's being curated for you and b) never cared to look at what's not being said. You should hope that your views (or more accurately, their views) never stray from it and the information that a tiny group of people are controlling is good for the entire population. You could say just use another subreddit. But this isn't limited to one.
      • Teever 4y ago
        Is the window really that narrow, or do you just happen to fall outside it/identify as having fallen outside of it for personal identity reasons?
        • rhaksw 4y ago
          It's narrower than you might think. For example, I've recently been paying attention to the trans issue because some are saying that pro-trans groups are equating words with violence [1] [2]. Apparently the pro-trans groups have been saying that only 1% detransition, but there are youth speaking out saying that number is likely far greater [3] [4] [5]. It's hard for me to believe these are made up stories. And, it appears that such stories are currently only being told via conservative media. Please correct me if I am wrong. This is of interest to me because the US holds that words are not equal to violence, with the only exception being the emergency principle. According to Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU from 1991-2008, the emergency test says speech may be punishable "if, in context, it directly causes specific imminent serious harm." [6] If groups are successfully convincing people otherwise, then it may mean we are forgetting what free speech is. Free speech, the US version anyway, draws the line at violence, not words. [1] https://archive.ph/1NeiV#selection-1513.7-1513.57 https://archive.ph/1NeiV#selection-1513.7-1513.57 [2] https://corinnacohn.substack.com/p/the-world-should-not-need-kiwi-farms https://corinnacohn.substack.com/p/the-world-should-not-need... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tQr6WZXHSQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tQr6WZXHSQ [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdSKBVHrizo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdSKBVHrizo [5] https://youtu.be/STE1pmCjULQ?t=2047 https://youtu.be/STE1pmCjULQ?t=2047 [6] https://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&id=whBQDwAAQBAJ&q=in+context%2C+it+directly+causes+specific+imminent+serious+harm https://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&id=whBQDwAAQBAJ&q=in+c...
          • hhmc 4y ago
            That's a _VERY_ selective set of sources ([3][4][5]), which you are in bad faith using a representation of the "youth"
            • 4y ago
    • GameOfFrowns 4y ago
      Until the day you fail the purity test and have your IP and all accounts permabanned due to a disagreement with a mod in disguise.
      • pontsun 4y ago
        Luckily, moderators can't IP ban anyone. :)
        • GameOfFrowns 4y ago
          They just use the internal tools and create a ticket to have an admin ban your IP and all current and future accounts. Wow, such a hurdle! Even more awesome to have this happen with a dormitory IP. /s
        • bakugo 4y ago
          Yes, they can. If you piss off a moderator they'll just ask an admin to ban you, assuming it's not an admin's alt in the first place (admins have sockpuppet mod accounts on every major sub)
      • mariusor 4y ago
        There's no purity test in the subreddit except being an acknowledged scientist in the domain the submission is about. Forgive me the snark, but it's like you don't even know what we're talking about.
    • laputan_machine 4y ago
      Wait until your view becomes the one attacked. Regardless of scientific merit.
      • mariusor 4y ago
        I think you and the other posters decrying my "oh so narrow" point of view forget that the subreddit is nothing more than a place to see interesting news about science and the clarifications that people in science can bring on those news. What it is not is a place where laymen like me and (probably you) can debate the veracity of said science. I don't give a toss about which science articles are posted there and if they agree with my world view as long as the curation and moderation is consistent with the principles described in the subreddit's rules. In my opinion is fine to not have an opinion or comment even if someone on the internet is wrong - present time excluded. :P
        • rhaksw 4y ago
          Check out this talk from Jonathan Rauch [1]. He goes through how both the left and right censor, and how that ends up being good for nobody, even if it starts out happening only in the private sector. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0T9XSG73kY&t=1774s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0T9XSG73kY&t=1774s
  • leetnewb 4y ago
    I actually think the quality of the comment section in /r/science has gotten worse over the years because moderation is too slow or lenient. I assume that has more to do with the volume of work than intent of the moderation team themselves.
• fuckstick 4y ago
  > Criticism of published work should assume basic competence What this is saying is that even if egregious blunders are made it is against the rules to call that out - how can I point out incompetence if I have to assume competence? I host a medical journal club - statistical incompetence in the life sciences is bountiful. > Comments dismissing established findings I’m sure defining established isn’t difficult to do/open for abuse. /s Those aren’t “strict” rules - they are poorly defined rules open up to tremendous interpretation. Reddit is a cesspool for honest intellectual debate.
  • andy_ppp 4y ago
    It’s better to say I think the authors should have thought about X rather the author is a moron and incompetent for not doing X. You can still say it by critiquing the actions not the character of the person. Similar rules exist in the Houses of parliament around accusations of lying simply because everyone would decend into that as a method of argument. It’s harder to call people out but still possible in my opinion.
    • fuckstick 4y ago
      Ok, but that’s not what the rule is saying (be civil, no ad hominem, etc). If that were the case I would have no issue. Maybe that would be a reasonable rule - and it is on many forums. It’s saying that criticism must “assume competence” - that’s very different - and as a moderator I can twist any kind of criticism into a violation of this rule. And why do I have to assume competence anyway - shouldn’t the work stand on its own merits? And let’s get something straight - “being a moron” is not equivalent to being incompetent (in an area of expertise). One is just name calling the other is a specific legitimate criticism.
      • andy_ppp 4y ago
        The community is 95% less competent than the researchers so I think this rule is fine.
        • 4y ago
• feet 4y ago
  It makes me think about comment sections here on HN when a study on psychedelics gets posted. Suddenly 90% of top comments are all personal anecdote about mushrooms or whatever.
  • sokoloff 4y ago
    That seems normal to me. I click and comment on the articles on topics that interest me. Aviation articles will have aviation buffs over-represented. Math articles math buffs. EV articles will have EV buffs and people with an opinion about Teslas over-represented. For psychedelics, the effect might be more pronounced because there aren’t that many people casually interested and/or those who are are reading and not writing. (I’ve never taken any; what am I going to add to the discussion? If someone has and their comment is interesting, I’ll upvote it.)
    • feet 4y ago
      Right, but it's all personal anecdote. Not commentary on studies or research. If the guidelines for the subreddit are to keep things more focused on research it would make sense to me for mods to remove the massive amount of anecdote that comes out of the woodwork. Sure people can be interested in using psychedelics themselves, but they want the discussion to focus on research
      • pixl97 4y ago
        This is what most people seem to miss in this HN thread. Go look at the average 'large' subreddit, and I'm talking about the ones where personal anecdotes are expected. You'll tend to have some top level posts that are decent, and generally longer post. You'll have hundreds of posts that are memes, crap like "5 out of 7, perfect", subarguments that go off topic, and plenty of bots posting comments from other threads. The format the /r/science requires is the antithesis of 99% of the rest of reddit. This leads to moderation fatigue. You have lots of stuff that should be summarily executed and takes up tons of your time. Then you have the minority of posts that require some thought on if it's just a controversial post, or that guy that just keeps making accounts and being an intentional malicious troll. But, you don't have any time to think on these post because another 3 crap posts ended up in the moderation queue in the 3 seconds you're looking at the first one. Eventually people get to the point that if a post ends up in the moderation queue it just gets blocked, which then trolls use to flag just about everything. It's a messy situation when you're asking volunteers to do this.
• pclmulqdq 4y ago
  There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of papers that get removed, including comments that suggest sub-optimal experiment design, overreach in conclusions, or statistical issues (which are usually present in the hard-hitting, catchy studies that make it to r/science). Normally, these are part of healthy scientific discourse. When the moderators of r/science particularly agree with a post or it is politically charged, almost any discussion of the actual science involved is purged (unless it is praise or an "explanation" that includes a lot of praise). When the mods don't agree, you can see some discussion of gaps in papers, but you must take the conclusion of the paper as 100% true, which is not how science works.