4 ms·

This is a non-issue most of the time. Outside of a few subreddits, reddit moderators are just random people, not reddit employees. It's all on them to moderate

by sli 13y ago

This is a non-issue most of the time. Outside of a few subreddits, reddit moderators are just random people, not reddit employees. It's all on them to moderate their subreddits however they want and up to the users to sit there and take it or do something about it. That doesn't make it excusable, but it's not at all reddit's fault that it happens.

lutusp 13y ago
> This is a non-issue most of the time. That's true. Most of the time. > Outside of a few subreddits, reddit moderators are just random people, not reddit employees. You're missing the point. If a moderator censors content, and if Reddit doesn't have a policy against censorship, the fact that the moderators aren't Reddit employees is irrelevant. Neglect shapes policy. There are only a few things that Reddit (Note: edited the following) will aggressively prevent as a matter of public relations, among which are threats against people, the dispensing of medical advice, and libelous remarks. Those are aggressively acted against. And a few others -- for example, Reddit just today banned a subReddit that planned to try to locate a Washington shipyard shooter that allegedly escaped. Reddit got a black eye over a similar subReddit that searched for the Boston bomber suspects and wrongly accused someone innocent, so they're not going to allow that to happen again. The Reddit moderator who censored me made that argument also -- he wasn't a Reddit employee, so it was wrong to call it a Reddit problem. There are some ways in which that's true, but there's no impenetrable fence between Reddit policymakers and subReddit moderators who aren't employees of anything. I had to explain this to the moderator using Galileo as an example -- Galileo wasn't ever tried by the Inquisition, he was just walked through a room full of torture equipment and told to shut up (greatly simplifying a complex story). But the moderator wasn't very bright and I don't think he ever got it -- he just wouldn't tolerate any criticism of psychologists or psychology, and if I criticized psychology again, I was out. I'm familiar with the typical intellectual gifts of those who think psychology is a science, and I realized nothing could be be done. And that was the last time I ever posted to Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/user/lutusp http://www.reddit.com/user/lutusp http://arachnoid.com/psychology/reddit_psychology.html http://arachnoid.com/psychology/reddit_psychology.html > ... but it's not at all reddit's fault that it happens. In fact, in fairness and in the eyes of the law, it is. If Reddit doesn't have a policy against it and doesn't act against it, it becomes corporate policy de facto. There are any number of examples in case law where benign neglect turns out not to be so benign. The reason I haven't tried to do anything about this is that the moderator has speech rights also, and the fact that he doesn't know anything about the topic is not a meaningful argument against his right to express ignorance -- that's a right he certainly has.
- aroch 13y ago
  There are only a few things that Reddit really must prevent, among which are threats against people, the dispensing of medical advice, and libelous remarks No, they really don't have to to do any of those. The ToS absolves Reddit Inc of pretty much any responsibility for user action. Section 230 of the CDA -- also known as the Safe Harbor provision -- prevents you from suing Reddit Inc for libelous, insulting, defamatory or otherwise unwanted speech by their members. You're also going to have an uphill battle if you want to go down the road of medical advice -- A "reasonable" interpretation of advice given from an unauthenticated source (ie. not a real, living breathing doctor with their MD behind them) is that you shouldn't follow it.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > No, they really don't have to to do any of those. I agree, I should have said they aggressively act against those things as matter of public relations, not because of legal requirements. I edited the original post to reflect this. > A "reasonable" interpretation of advice given from an unauthenticated source (ie. not a real, living breathing doctor with their MD behind them) is that you shouldn't follow it. True, but it seems many people don't know this. Interestingly, outside of a book (protected by freedom of the press), if a non-MD dispenses, or appears to be dispensing, medical advice, in most times and places he can be prosecuted.

by sli 13y ago

lutusp 13y ago

> This is a non-issue most of the time. That's true. Most of the time. > Outside of a few subreddits, reddit moderators are just random people, not reddit employees. You're missing the point. If a moderator censors content, and if Reddit doesn't have a policy against censorship, the fact that the moderators aren't Reddit employees is irrelevant. Neglect shapes policy. There are only a few things that Reddit (Note: edited the following) will aggressively prevent as a matter of public relations, among which are threats against people, the dispensing of medical advice, and libelous remarks. Those are aggressively acted against. And a few others -- for example, Reddit just today banned a subReddit that planned to try to locate a Washington shipyard shooter that allegedly escaped. Reddit got a black eye over a similar subReddit that searched for the Boston bomber suspects and wrongly accused someone innocent, so they're not going to allow that to happen again. The Reddit moderator who censored me made that argument also -- he wasn't a Reddit employee, so it was wrong to call it a Reddit problem. There are some ways in which that's true, but there's no impenetrable fence between Reddit policymakers and subReddit moderators who aren't employees of anything. I had to explain this to the moderator using Galileo as an example -- Galileo wasn't ever tried by the Inquisition, he was just walked through a room full of torture equipment and told to shut up (greatly simplifying a complex story). But the moderator wasn't very bright and I don't think he ever got it -- he just wouldn't tolerate any criticism of psychologists or psychology, and if I criticized psychology again, I was out. I'm familiar with the typical intellectual gifts of those who think psychology is a science, and I realized nothing could be be done. And that was the last time I ever posted to Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/user/lutusp http://www.reddit.com/user/lutusp http://arachnoid.com/psychology/reddit_psychology.html http://arachnoid.com/psychology/reddit_psychology.html > ... but it's not at all reddit's fault that it happens. In fact, in fairness and in the eyes of the law, it is. If Reddit doesn't have a policy against it and doesn't act against it, it becomes corporate policy de facto. There are any number of examples in case law where benign neglect turns out not to be so benign. The reason I haven't tried to do anything about this is that the moderator has speech rights also, and the fact that he doesn't know anything about the topic is not a meaningful argument against his right to express ignorance -- that's a right he certainly has.

aroch 13y ago
There are only a few things that Reddit really must prevent, among which are threats against people, the dispensing of medical advice, and libelous remarks No, they really don't have to to do any of those. The ToS absolves Reddit Inc of pretty much any responsibility for user action. Section 230 of the CDA -- also known as the Safe Harbor provision -- prevents you from suing Reddit Inc for libelous, insulting, defamatory or otherwise unwanted speech by their members. You're also going to have an uphill battle if you want to go down the road of medical advice -- A "reasonable" interpretation of advice given from an unauthenticated source (ie. not a real, living breathing doctor with their MD behind them) is that you shouldn't follow it.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > No, they really don't have to to do any of those. I agree, I should have said they aggressively act against those things as matter of public relations, not because of legal requirements. I edited the original post to reflect this. > A "reasonable" interpretation of advice given from an unauthenticated source (ie. not a real, living breathing doctor with their MD behind them) is that you shouldn't follow it. True, but it seems many people don't know this. Interestingly, outside of a book (protected by freedom of the press), if a non-MD dispenses, or appears to be dispensing, medical advice, in most times and places he can be prosecuted.