3 ms·

It might. What would happen then? I'd argue there'd be a lot of good discussion. Why bother though? There are thousands of places you can have that discussion,

It might. What would happen then? I'd argue there'd be a lot of good discussion. Why bother though? There are thousands of places you can have that discussion, including on Reddit. You can set up, say, /r/scienceforall right now and establish the rules you want. The /r/science sub has decided that it’s a space which should have heavy moderation - a totally legitimate viewpoint with obvious benefits and costs. You might not agree with the balance, but the beauty is you don’t have to.

rhaksw 4y ago
> Why bother though? See 18:20 [1] and 19:52 [2] in the talk linked on this post. Nobody will visit r/scienceforall because r/science will remove references to it. Plus, forcing me to set up a group doesn't sound like a solution, it sounds like a shake down. To get an open discussion space I have to moderate it, and then have the social media site threaten removal of my mod powers if I fail to remove something they don't like within their desired time frame. That means I have to review every piece of user-submitted content. No thanks. Transparency and light-touch moderation would be more efficient. > The /r/science sub has decided that it’s a space which should have heavy moderation - a totally legitimate viewpoint with obvious benefits and costs. You might not agree with the balance, but the beauty is you don’t have to. My issue is with the system, not moderators. Legally speaking, shadow moderation may be in the clear, but it's still harmful for society while we have just a few major platforms. We should all know and share what's going on. [1] https://youtu.be/aCadmiIfbcI?t=18m20s https://youtu.be/aCadmiIfbcI?t=18m20s [2] https://youtu.be/aCadmiIfbcI?t=19m52s https://youtu.be/aCadmiIfbcI?t=19m52s
- x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
  If nobody will visit your subreddit, then that might be an indication of how it's actually being perceived, and not evidence of some great injustice surrounding "free speech".
  - rhaksw 4y ago
    No, it's just hard to advertise them. Groups often offshoot specifically because they disagreed with moderators of the previous group. The new group will want to attract users from the old group, but the old group's moderators set up bots to auto-remove any attempts at sharing the new group. I linked the point in the talk where I discuss this, but I can share an example here too. r/LibertarianUncensored is 2,000 members and stickied this post [1] explaining shadow removals occurring on r/Libertarian which has 500,000 members. If you bring this up on r/Libertarian your commentary will be removed and you'll either be banned or shadow banned. Both make it impossible for you to share what's going on with users in r/Libertarian. Meanwhile, moderators there publicly deny that anything untoward is happening [2]. Maybe some day r/LibertarianUncensored can overcome its userbase deficit of half a percent, but it's obvious that shadow moderation is helping to maintain r/Libertarian's domination. Other groups that skew younger, for example r/Overwatch, may already be familiar with Reveddit and thus have a better chance at challenging mod biases [3]. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/LibertarianUncensored/comments/uotv5a/analysis_criticism_of_mods_at_rlibertarian_will/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LibertarianUncensored/comments/uotv... [2] https://archive.ph/O0GN8 https://archive.ph/O0GN8 [3] https://old.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/ye16uv/this_subreddit_is_in_damage_control_mode/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/ye16uv/this_subr...
- matthewmacleod 4y ago
  I think the issue here is that you’re blurring your complaints between the two quite distinct issues of heavy-handed moderation, and shadow moderation. You’re talking about having a philosophical or principled issue with shadow moderation; fine - I don’t necessarily agree, but it’s a reasonable argument to have. But what you have ended up saying here is “all moderation in all communities must be to my own standards and any others are wrong”. And I don’t think that’s reasonable - individual communities, like on Reddit, should have the freedom to enforce the rules of those communities as they see fit. Reddit is full of terrible, mostly unmoderated cesspits; it’s also full of heavily- and lightly-moderated subs. I would tend to agree that moderation in general should be on the lighter side and in particular there should be approaches to tackle the abuse of power that’s pretty common (such as auto-banning links to alternative subs you mention). But I have seen so many spaces ruined by lack of moderation over the years that it’s hard to get enthusiastic about it as a cause.
  - rhaksw 4y ago
    > I think the issue here is that you’re blurring your complaints between the two quite distinct issues of heavy-handed moderation, and shadow moderation. You’re talking about having a philosophical or principled issue with shadow moderation; fine - I don’t necessarily agree, but it’s a reasonable argument to have. Could be. They kind of go together. Shadow moderation often leads to heavy handed moderation. But yes it's entirely possible I'm muddling things together. > But what you have ended up saying here is “all moderation in all communities must be to my own standards and any others are wrong”. You lost me. How did you come to that conclusion? My gripe is with shadow moderation, and even in that case I think it should be up to the platforms to decide whether or not they want to implement it. Without further understanding of the law, I don't support government intervention. So I don't see how I've removed choice from either platforms or moderators here. > But I have seen so many spaces ruined by lack of moderation over the years that it’s hard to get enthusiastic about it as a cause. I see a lot get ruined by secretive moderation. And, getting rid of secretive moderation does not mean getting rid of moderation altogether. Remember, your ideological opponents have access to the same tools, and they don't have your moral safeguards. So they are inherently better at abusing whatever tool you provide to grow their following. What you want is to divide powers so that your worst enemy cannot abuse the things you have access to in order to do things to you that you would not do to them. Comprende?
BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
>”You can set up, say, /r/scienceforall right now and establish the rules you want.” In theory this is a viable solution. In all likelihood, this won’t succeed and there are probably a dozen offshoots already that no one knows about. I suspect two things would happen. The most likely thing is the subreddit languishes and never gets any traction. But if it somehow does, it is likely to get targeted as a disinformation subreddit or the admins will install their own powermods - as they typically do once subreddits become big enough. Given what we know about how Reddit chooses to display content and run its moderation team, I don’t think any alternative science subreddit would be allowed to successfully exist and be of any real competition to r/science.

rhaksw 4y ago

> Why bother though? See 18:20 [1] and 19:52 [2] in the talk linked on this post. Nobody will visit r/scienceforall because r/science will remove references to it. Plus, forcing me to set up a group doesn't sound like a solution, it sounds like a shake down. To get an open discussion space I have to moderate it, and then have the social media site threaten removal of my mod powers if I fail to remove something they don't like within their desired time frame. That means I have to review every piece of user-submitted content. No thanks. Transparency and light-touch moderation would be more efficient. > The /r/science sub has decided that it’s a space which should have heavy moderation - a totally legitimate viewpoint with obvious benefits and costs. You might not agree with the balance, but the beauty is you don’t have to. My issue is with the system, not moderators. Legally speaking, shadow moderation may be in the clear, but it's still harmful for society while we have just a few major platforms. We should all know and share what's going on. [1] https://youtu.be/aCadmiIfbcI?t=18m20s https://youtu.be/aCadmiIfbcI?t=18m20s [2] https://youtu.be/aCadmiIfbcI?t=19m52s https://youtu.be/aCadmiIfbcI?t=19m52s

x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
If nobody will visit your subreddit, then that might be an indication of how it's actually being perceived, and not evidence of some great injustice surrounding "free speech".
- rhaksw 4y ago
  No, it's just hard to advertise them. Groups often offshoot specifically because they disagreed with moderators of the previous group. The new group will want to attract users from the old group, but the old group's moderators set up bots to auto-remove any attempts at sharing the new group. I linked the point in the talk where I discuss this, but I can share an example here too. r/LibertarianUncensored is 2,000 members and stickied this post [1] explaining shadow removals occurring on r/Libertarian which has 500,000 members. If you bring this up on r/Libertarian your commentary will be removed and you'll either be banned or shadow banned. Both make it impossible for you to share what's going on with users in r/Libertarian. Meanwhile, moderators there publicly deny that anything untoward is happening [2]. Maybe some day r/LibertarianUncensored can overcome its userbase deficit of half a percent, but it's obvious that shadow moderation is helping to maintain r/Libertarian's domination. Other groups that skew younger, for example r/Overwatch, may already be familiar with Reveddit and thus have a better chance at challenging mod biases [3]. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/LibertarianUncensored/comments/uotv5a/analysis_criticism_of_mods_at_rlibertarian_will/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LibertarianUncensored/comments/uotv... [2] https://archive.ph/O0GN8 https://archive.ph/O0GN8 [3] https://old.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/ye16uv/this_subreddit_is_in_damage_control_mode/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/ye16uv/this_subr...
matthewmacleod 4y ago
I think the issue here is that you’re blurring your complaints between the two quite distinct issues of heavy-handed moderation, and shadow moderation. You’re talking about having a philosophical or principled issue with shadow moderation; fine - I don’t necessarily agree, but it’s a reasonable argument to have. But what you have ended up saying here is “all moderation in all communities must be to my own standards and any others are wrong”. And I don’t think that’s reasonable - individual communities, like on Reddit, should have the freedom to enforce the rules of those communities as they see fit. Reddit is full of terrible, mostly unmoderated cesspits; it’s also full of heavily- and lightly-moderated subs. I would tend to agree that moderation in general should be on the lighter side and in particular there should be approaches to tackle the abuse of power that’s pretty common (such as auto-banning links to alternative subs you mention). But I have seen so many spaces ruined by lack of moderation over the years that it’s hard to get enthusiastic about it as a cause.
- rhaksw 4y ago
  > I think the issue here is that you’re blurring your complaints between the two quite distinct issues of heavy-handed moderation, and shadow moderation. You’re talking about having a philosophical or principled issue with shadow moderation; fine - I don’t necessarily agree, but it’s a reasonable argument to have. Could be. They kind of go together. Shadow moderation often leads to heavy handed moderation. But yes it's entirely possible I'm muddling things together. > But what you have ended up saying here is “all moderation in all communities must be to my own standards and any others are wrong”. You lost me. How did you come to that conclusion? My gripe is with shadow moderation, and even in that case I think it should be up to the platforms to decide whether or not they want to implement it. Without further understanding of the law, I don't support government intervention. So I don't see how I've removed choice from either platforms or moderators here. > But I have seen so many spaces ruined by lack of moderation over the years that it’s hard to get enthusiastic about it as a cause. I see a lot get ruined by secretive moderation. And, getting rid of secretive moderation does not mean getting rid of moderation altogether. Remember, your ideological opponents have access to the same tools, and they don't have your moral safeguards. So they are inherently better at abusing whatever tool you provide to grow their following. What you want is to divide powers so that your worst enemy cannot abuse the things you have access to in order to do things to you that you would not do to them. Comprende?

BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago

>”You can set up, say, /r/scienceforall right now and establish the rules you want.” In theory this is a viable solution. In all likelihood, this won’t succeed and there are probably a dozen offshoots already that no one knows about. I suspect two things would happen. The most likely thing is the subreddit languishes and never gets any traction. But if it somehow does, it is likely to get targeted as a disinformation subreddit or the admins will install their own powermods - as they typically do once subreddits become big enough. Given what we know about how Reddit chooses to display content and run its moderation team, I don’t think any alternative science subreddit would be allowed to successfully exist and be of any real competition to r/science.