5 ms·

That's a very snarky way to put it. It's very well within the rights of the SE community to express their perspective and demand this to be respected. That's no

That's a very snarky way to put it. It's very well within the rights of the SE community to express their perspective and demand this to be respected. That's not naive. Naive would be assuming this is guaranteed to work. But if they actually implement a moderation strike then SE is going to fall apart sooner than later. So, it's not like they have no leverage.

mellosouls 3y ago
Its not at all "snarky". Expecting a business - with infamous episodes of contempt towards moderators - to behave in the idealistic way presented here is naïve. Might it submit to pressure? Perhaps. But the wording of this letter in its presumption of the motives of a private organisation misunderstands the reality of the commercial world.
- pydry 3y ago
  They're not just expecting the business to behave this way they are attempting to force its hand. Are you familiar with strike tactics?
  - mellosouls 3y ago
    Of course, but strikers are paid workers operating within a legal process, they can't just be easily supplanted by free alternatives as can moderators. But that's getting off the topic of whether or not the wording of the quoted paragraph reflects reality.
    - pydry 3y ago
      >strikers are paid workers Not in this case. The exchange is real but non-monetary. >But that's getting off the topic No, not really.
    - 2-718-281-828 3y ago
      > But that's getting off the topic of whether or not the wording of the quoted paragraph reflects reality. not off-topic at all - but I think you just noticed that your argument doesn't hold.
      - mellosouls 3y ago
        My original point was about an incorrect reading of what the network is there for; the distraction into strikes and whatnot might be of interest but not on that specific point - which holds regardless of your rather silly supposition.
        2-718-281-828 3y ago
        go ahead and file a complaint with the ministry of silly suppositions
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Strikes are not always in the legal process. Normally they are, but a number over time have been illegal by the laws.
    - idiotsecant 3y ago
      The idea of a strike being 'legal' or not is an unfortunate yoke that labor movements have allowed to be fitted to them. It's a silly idea and should be addressed as such. Labor has power. The collective masses have power over the few who oppress them. It doesn't matter if those people decide to call certain labor actions legal or illegal, they should happen (and must happen) all the same to keep the balance of power equitable.
    - MauranKilom 3y ago
      > they can't just be easily supplanted by free alternatives as can moderators. That's an incredibly naive take. Do you think there is an abundance of moderators just waiting to fill the ranks? Several SE sites are struggling with a lack of moderators already. Similarly, there is no abundance of community members curating questions and answers. It's all volunteers, and it's not like there's a huge untapped pool that they can access on-demand. It's kinda like saying that the entire community can be easily replaced because it's free. No, the community is the business value! Lastly, the main anti-spam tool of the site (smokedetector-se.org - community-built and -hosted) is also offline as part of the strike. The tooling built by SE the site is in no way shape or form adequate for combating the amount of spam the site receives. Sure, it's not irreplaceable, but it's not "free".
- numpad0 3y ago
  Are we heading towards a Soviet Union 1.2? It seems like there’s writing on the wall that isn’t clear enough for my eyes. It seems that a temporary mass destruction of free market economy is anticipated.
  - smitty1e 3y ago
    Not to get too tinfoil hat about it, but an economy controlled by a number of equity firms one can count on a single hand, with fingers to spare, hardly seems a "free market". Hence recent developments of large brands committing billion-dollar acts of seppuku in near-realtime: somebody is pulling strings in non-obvious, non-"free market" ways. It's a zany time to be alive, and one hopes that sites like this one can help redistribute a "free market" sensibility that seems on the wane.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
      > large brands committing billion-dollar acts of seppuku in near-realtime Could you cite examples? I don’t really keep up to date with the news so I would like to know?
      - smitty1e 3y ago
        Bud Light
        SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
        Okay, what else? One company doesn’t really indicate to me a trend
        smitty1e 3y ago
        Target.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      > Not to get too tinfoil hat about it, but an economy controlled by a number of equity firms one can count on a single hand, with fingers to spare, hardly seems a "free market". Is this the index fund conspiracy theory again? Where companies like Vanguard supposedly form some sort of shadowy evil cabal that secretly controls the entire economy?
- tremon 3y ago
  It's not a statement of expectation, it's a statement of value. Your uncharitable reading does not change at all what the statement is trying to convey: there's a mismatch between what the moderators perceive as the business' value and how the business acts to protect and expand on that value.
  - davemp 3y ago
    Very true. Throwing up your hands once you realize that corporations tend to be amoral profit maximizers is not helpful. Expecting corps (even non-profits) to behave altruistically is naive, so we have to take real steps to ensure their survival depends on them being good actors. Specifically, organization of contributors actually sounds like a very effective way of holding these morally dubious “content” middle men accountable. The consumers are too heterogeneous, numerous, and uninvested to realistically coordinate.
- soco 3y ago
  When the business is built on the activity of those moderators then there's a strong relationship between them, whether the business likes it or not.
xaerise 3y ago
it is every business mission and goal to deliver value to its owners.
- 2-718-281-828 3y ago
  nobody questions that - not even the open letter.
- NoboruWataya 3y ago
  Sure, which is why it is not helpful or interesting to point it out. When companies talk about their "mission", they are referring more to how they intend to deliver value to their owners, usually by identifying some social need and satisfying that need in exchange for value.

mellosouls 3y ago

Its not at all "snarky". Expecting a business - with infamous episodes of contempt towards moderators - to behave in the idealistic way presented here is naïve. Might it submit to pressure? Perhaps. But the wording of this letter in its presumption of the motives of a private organisation misunderstands the reality of the commercial world.

pydry 3y ago
They're not just expecting the business to behave this way they are attempting to force its hand. Are you familiar with strike tactics?
- mellosouls 3y ago
  Of course, but strikers are paid workers operating within a legal process, they can't just be easily supplanted by free alternatives as can moderators. But that's getting off the topic of whether or not the wording of the quoted paragraph reflects reality.
  - pydry 3y ago
    >strikers are paid workers Not in this case. The exchange is real but non-monetary. >But that's getting off the topic No, not really.
  - 2-718-281-828 3y ago
    > But that's getting off the topic of whether or not the wording of the quoted paragraph reflects reality. not off-topic at all - but I think you just noticed that your argument doesn't hold.
    - mellosouls 3y ago
      My original point was about an incorrect reading of what the network is there for; the distraction into strikes and whatnot might be of interest but not on that specific point - which holds regardless of your rather silly supposition.
      - 2-718-281-828 3y ago
        go ahead and file a complaint with the ministry of silly suppositions
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Strikes are not always in the legal process. Normally they are, but a number over time have been illegal by the laws.
  - idiotsecant 3y ago
    The idea of a strike being 'legal' or not is an unfortunate yoke that labor movements have allowed to be fitted to them. It's a silly idea and should be addressed as such. Labor has power. The collective masses have power over the few who oppress them. It doesn't matter if those people decide to call certain labor actions legal or illegal, they should happen (and must happen) all the same to keep the balance of power equitable.
  - MauranKilom 3y ago
    > they can't just be easily supplanted by free alternatives as can moderators. That's an incredibly naive take. Do you think there is an abundance of moderators just waiting to fill the ranks? Several SE sites are struggling with a lack of moderators already. Similarly, there is no abundance of community members curating questions and answers. It's all volunteers, and it's not like there's a huge untapped pool that they can access on-demand. It's kinda like saying that the entire community can be easily replaced because it's free. No, the community is the business value! Lastly, the main anti-spam tool of the site (smokedetector-se.org - community-built and -hosted) is also offline as part of the strike. The tooling built by SE the site is in no way shape or form adequate for combating the amount of spam the site receives. Sure, it's not irreplaceable, but it's not "free".
numpad0 3y ago
Are we heading towards a Soviet Union 1.2? It seems like there’s writing on the wall that isn’t clear enough for my eyes. It seems that a temporary mass destruction of free market economy is anticipated.
- smitty1e 3y ago
  Not to get too tinfoil hat about it, but an economy controlled by a number of equity firms one can count on a single hand, with fingers to spare, hardly seems a "free market". Hence recent developments of large brands committing billion-dollar acts of seppuku in near-realtime: somebody is pulling strings in non-obvious, non-"free market" ways. It's a zany time to be alive, and one hopes that sites like this one can help redistribute a "free market" sensibility that seems on the wane.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
    > large brands committing billion-dollar acts of seppuku in near-realtime Could you cite examples? I don’t really keep up to date with the news so I would like to know?
    - smitty1e 3y ago
      Bud Light
      - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
        Okay, what else? One company doesn’t really indicate to me a trend
        smitty1e 3y ago
        Target.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    > Not to get too tinfoil hat about it, but an economy controlled by a number of equity firms one can count on a single hand, with fingers to spare, hardly seems a "free market". Is this the index fund conspiracy theory again? Where companies like Vanguard supposedly form some sort of shadowy evil cabal that secretly controls the entire economy?
tremon 3y ago
It's not a statement of expectation, it's a statement of value. Your uncharitable reading does not change at all what the statement is trying to convey: there's a mismatch between what the moderators perceive as the business' value and how the business acts to protect and expand on that value.
- davemp 3y ago
  Very true. Throwing up your hands once you realize that corporations tend to be amoral profit maximizers is not helpful. Expecting corps (even non-profits) to behave altruistically is naive, so we have to take real steps to ensure their survival depends on them being good actors. Specifically, organization of contributors actually sounds like a very effective way of holding these morally dubious “content” middle men accountable. The consumers are too heterogeneous, numerous, and uninvested to realistically coordinate.
soco 3y ago
When the business is built on the activity of those moderators then there's a strong relationship between them, whether the business likes it or not.

xaerise 3y ago

it is every business mission and goal to deliver value to its owners.

2-718-281-828 3y ago
nobody questions that - not even the open letter.
NoboruWataya 3y ago
Sure, which is why it is not helpful or interesting to point it out. When companies talk about their "mission", they are referring more to how they intend to deliver value to their owners, usually by identifying some social need and satisfying that need in exchange for value.