4 ms·

While I support upholding section 230 I find irony in reddit proclaiming their support for users and everyday citizens. The majority of the site is overrun by z

While I support upholding section 230 I find irony in reddit proclaiming their support for users and everyday citizens. The majority of the site is overrun by zealots and trolls who relentlessly punish any non-conformance woth their chosen orthodoxy. Their moderation rarely maintains communities but rather restricts discussion, dissent and freedom of expression. This is like the Stazi proclaiming support for privacy laws.

paulpauper 4y ago
This was way worse during Covid , I know, even though before Covid it was already very bad. People were banned just for asking questions, merely for dissenting from the narrative, which was constantly changing, like about masks.
- shagie 4y ago
  The issue that moderators face is the "what is the relative worth of this topic in this subreddit compared to the additional (personal) cost of moderating it?" For many hot topic items no matter how innocuous or relevant to the subreddit, unless there is a large and active moderator team that can handle the fallout and apply appropriate anti-flame measures, the course that is easiest to take is "just delete it as soon as it starts." The moderation tools are blunt. Remove and approve. Shadow bans aren't things that can be done easily by mods (possible, but takes a fair bit of manual curation and getting into the automod setup). Delayed visibility can't be done (I'd love to have a "any reply to a comment that has a significant number of votes in that post is delayed by 15 minutes"). If there's a post that is "this will take me 1 minute to delete now" or "this will take me 1 hour to clean up later" - that 1 minute to delete now will likely win every time. Note that the alternative isn't "but you can just leave it up and users will behave" - it is "this sub will become unmoderated, full of spam, and eventually closed down." If the mod is at all interested in the topic, that's not a desirable state.
llanowarelves 4y ago
A while back, somebody made a moderator graph, that showed what dozens and dozens of subreddits individual moderators moderated. You could see their "web". It not only confirmed the leanings and behavior but undeniably so. It is why "redditor" exists as an insulting term, but fb/twitter/etc don't have one. Not necessarily just the users, but the mods too.
- spritefs 4y ago
  > It is why "redditor" exists as an insulting term, but fb/twitter/etc don't have one. Not necessarily just the users, but the mods too. It really is. If someone mentions using reddit irl I usually assume that they're bad news and steer clear
berjin 4y ago
If anything there are not enough trolls and devils advocates. It's a total hive mind. If opinion is split 40/60 on a contentious topic users only get to see the prominent opinions from the slight majority. The way the voting is displayed a sum total rather than up/down means users can't know how contentious something is. Facebook is the opposite where mostly controversial comments are shown. Both suck.
ilyt 4y ago
That's a bit of an overstatement, it varies heavily from subreddit to subreddit.
nobody9999 4y ago
>While I support upholding section 230 I find irony in reddit proclaiming their support for users and everyday citizens. The majority of the site is overrun by zealots and trolls who relentlessly punish any non-conformance woth their chosen orthodoxy. Their moderation rarely maintains communities but rather restricts discussion, dissent and freedom of expression. So what? There's nothing in Section 230 or any other US law (this is a US case, so I'll focus there only) that makes being a "zealot" or a "troll" or "relentlessly punish[ing] any non-conformance woth[sic] their chosen orthodoxy" or "restrict[ing] discussion, dissent and freedom of expression" in a private actor's[0] forum a criminal act or (with the exception of defamation[1]) a civil tort. Don't like what folks say or how they moderate? Ignore them. Or sue them (most likely a waste of time and money, but don't let that stop you). [0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/17/18682099/supreme-court-ruling-first-amendment-social-media-public-forum https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/17/18682099/supreme-court-ru... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

paulpauper 4y ago

This was way worse during Covid , I know, even though before Covid it was already very bad. People were banned just for asking questions, merely for dissenting from the narrative, which was constantly changing, like about masks.

shagie 4y ago
The issue that moderators face is the "what is the relative worth of this topic in this subreddit compared to the additional (personal) cost of moderating it?" For many hot topic items no matter how innocuous or relevant to the subreddit, unless there is a large and active moderator team that can handle the fallout and apply appropriate anti-flame measures, the course that is easiest to take is "just delete it as soon as it starts." The moderation tools are blunt. Remove and approve. Shadow bans aren't things that can be done easily by mods (possible, but takes a fair bit of manual curation and getting into the automod setup). Delayed visibility can't be done (I'd love to have a "any reply to a comment that has a significant number of votes in that post is delayed by 15 minutes"). If there's a post that is "this will take me 1 minute to delete now" or "this will take me 1 hour to clean up later" - that 1 minute to delete now will likely win every time. Note that the alternative isn't "but you can just leave it up and users will behave" - it is "this sub will become unmoderated, full of spam, and eventually closed down." If the mod is at all interested in the topic, that's not a desirable state.

llanowarelves 4y ago

A while back, somebody made a moderator graph, that showed what dozens and dozens of subreddits individual moderators moderated. You could see their "web". It not only confirmed the leanings and behavior but undeniably so. It is why "redditor" exists as an insulting term, but fb/twitter/etc don't have one. Not necessarily just the users, but the mods too.

spritefs 4y ago
> It is why "redditor" exists as an insulting term, but fb/twitter/etc don't have one. Not necessarily just the users, but the mods too. It really is. If someone mentions using reddit irl I usually assume that they're bad news and steer clear

berjin 4y ago

If anything there are not enough trolls and devils advocates. It's a total hive mind. If opinion is split 40/60 on a contentious topic users only get to see the prominent opinions from the slight majority. The way the voting is displayed a sum total rather than up/down means users can't know how contentious something is. Facebook is the opposite where mostly controversial comments are shown. Both suck.

ilyt 4y ago

That's a bit of an overstatement, it varies heavily from subreddit to subreddit.

nobody9999 4y ago

>While I support upholding section 230 I find irony in reddit proclaiming their support for users and everyday citizens. The majority of the site is overrun by zealots and trolls who relentlessly punish any non-conformance woth their chosen orthodoxy. Their moderation rarely maintains communities but rather restricts discussion, dissent and freedom of expression. So what? There's nothing in Section 230 or any other US law (this is a US case, so I'll focus there only) that makes being a "zealot" or a "troll" or "relentlessly punish[ing] any non-conformance woth[sic] their chosen orthodoxy" or "restrict[ing] discussion, dissent and freedom of expression" in a private actor's[0] forum a criminal act or (with the exception of defamation[1]) a civil tort. Don't like what folks say or how they moderate? Ignore them. Or sue them (most likely a waste of time and money, but don't let that stop you). [0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/17/18682099/supreme-court-ruling-first-amendment-social-media-public-forum https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/17/18682099/supreme-court-ru... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation