5 ms·

This episode exposes a weakness in Reddit's overall structure, namely the opaque process whereby moderators are chosen. When domains are banned completely and a

by revscat 13y ago

This episode exposes a weakness in Reddit's overall structure, namely the opaque process whereby moderators are chosen. When domains are banned completely and against the wishes of the broader community it shows that Reddit's otherwise democratic processes can be fairly autocratic. The solution is a system where users can vote on who is a moderator. Between this and /r/worldnews Banning of Russia Today it is apparent that moderators have far too much power over the content of various subteddit's. Such voting could be limited to once per month, and two users who have a certain karma. There might even be an opportunity for a competitor site which does this very thing. Edit: The number of moderators should be a function of the number of subscribers as well.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
staringispolite 13y ago
Users do vote: with their subreddit subscriptions (also PMs to moderators, and/or text submissions complaining about policy). I don't get the sense that this was unwanted from the community either. I don't know if this makes me biased, but I for one welcome fewer low-quality, link-bait, and/or recycled-story articles.
- ferdo 13y ago
  > "I don't get the sense that this was unwanted from the community either." It was unwanted. The mods' announcement was even downvoted to zero by the community: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1pedlv/concerning_recent_changes_in_allowed_domains/ http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1pedlv/concerning_...
  - shitlord 13y ago
    But the users are idiots. The users on the thread you linked think that filtering out shitty new sources is some kind of right-wing conspiracy. r/politics is the opposite of a place you would visit for reasonable political discussion. It was so bad that it got dropped from the list of default subs, and even before that, people created accounts just to filter out stuff from that sub. The sub needed quality control for a really long time, and now it's finally getting it.
    - ferdo 13y ago
      > But the users are idiots. Since mods come from the userbase, what does that say about the mods? > The users on the thread you linked think that filtering out shitty new sources is some kind of right-wing conspiracy. Some do, sure. Many others, including ex-mods, see it for what it is: censorship.
      - staringispolite 13y ago
        A couple problems with your analysis: the population down-voting that post was preselected for those who had not already left/unsubscribed as /r/politics went downhill for the last couple years. "Censorship" is a biased word, usually chosen by people who don't like what's being enforced. I would perhaps use the word "filtering" and it's perfectly common in a lot of subreddits. I don't think "censoring" is fair because all the same topics and events will still get discussed. The theory being that now, discussion starts with - on average - better reporting.
        ferdo 13y ago
        > "Censorship" is a biased word Only to someone in favor of censorship.
        staringispolite 13y ago
        Filtering is not always bad, especially not when it's done transparently, and in pursuit of a better community. To claim that filtering out those low-quality sites, when there are many higher quality sites covering the exact same topics, in just as timely a manner is somehow equivalent to censoring Google results in China - is just disingenuous.
        ferdo 13y ago
        > Filtering is not always bad That wasn't the issue. The issue was the word 'censorship' being perceived as a biased word. Only censors or those with the predilection to censor would think the word is "biased".
Raphmedia 13y ago
If users were really disturbed by that change, a new subreddit would simply be created which allow these domains.
- revscat 13y ago
  That does not address the imbalance of influence moderators have. Also, asking some 1+ million subscribers to switch is inefficient when a process could be implemented which addresses community concerns.
- selmnoo 13y ago
  There's a reason premium domain names go for a high price: having generic-words for domains is big value. Similarly r/politics is a big deal. Gaining traction on a new subreddit would be a big issue in and of itself even if one set out to create a new politics subreddit. I'm really enjoying, by the way, that Mother Jones is banned. Mother Jones has a self-alleged left stint to it -- but at least they come right out and say it. Contrast that with Rupert's WSJ (hah, its /op-ed/ pieces are right now on r/politics front page!) Since having been bought by Rupert WSJ been leaning more to the right [1], is WSJ going to get banned by r/politics too now? [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html...
  - TylerE 13y ago
    Certainly not a requirement. Look back into the reddit dark ages at the /r/marijuana /r/trees schism, for instance.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    Since having been bought by Rupert WSJ been leaning more to the right The WSJ is far more liberal than it was a generation ago.[1] The WSJ is sort of Bloombergian in its outlook. Also, Murdoch is not American. Most people consider the UK Conservatives left of center of even US democrats (eg, signle payer healthcare), so again even if Murdoch was pushing the US toward the EU right, it would be moving the the US left. (Another reason why these words are sort of ill-advised). Of course, he's actually Australian. So YMMV. [1] And frankly the NYT link is arguablly an opinion piece.
aaron695 13y ago
> This episode exposes a weakness in Reddit's overall structure Except this was a good decision. If anything it exposes the fail of Reddit's voting system such that theses emotive magazines that directly tap the human brain for uplinks needed to be banned rather than not voted up. Although it all depends, is Reddit just a money making machine? So allowing people to constantly reinforce bad behaviours might be seen as good from a company level?

by revscat 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

staringispolite 13y ago

Users do vote: with their subreddit subscriptions (also PMs to moderators, and/or text submissions complaining about policy). I don't get the sense that this was unwanted from the community either. I don't know if this makes me biased, but I for one welcome fewer low-quality, link-bait, and/or recycled-story articles.

ferdo 13y ago
> "I don't get the sense that this was unwanted from the community either." It was unwanted. The mods' announcement was even downvoted to zero by the community: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1pedlv/concerning_recent_changes_in_allowed_domains/ http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1pedlv/concerning_...
- shitlord 13y ago
  But the users are idiots. The users on the thread you linked think that filtering out shitty new sources is some kind of right-wing conspiracy. r/politics is the opposite of a place you would visit for reasonable political discussion. It was so bad that it got dropped from the list of default subs, and even before that, people created accounts just to filter out stuff from that sub. The sub needed quality control for a really long time, and now it's finally getting it.
  - ferdo 13y ago
    > But the users are idiots. Since mods come from the userbase, what does that say about the mods? > The users on the thread you linked think that filtering out shitty new sources is some kind of right-wing conspiracy. Some do, sure. Many others, including ex-mods, see it for what it is: censorship.
    - staringispolite 13y ago
      A couple problems with your analysis: the population down-voting that post was preselected for those who had not already left/unsubscribed as /r/politics went downhill for the last couple years. "Censorship" is a biased word, usually chosen by people who don't like what's being enforced. I would perhaps use the word "filtering" and it's perfectly common in a lot of subreddits. I don't think "censoring" is fair because all the same topics and events will still get discussed. The theory being that now, discussion starts with - on average - better reporting.
      - ferdo 13y ago
        > "Censorship" is a biased word Only to someone in favor of censorship.
        staringispolite 13y ago
        Filtering is not always bad, especially not when it's done transparently, and in pursuit of a better community. To claim that filtering out those low-quality sites, when there are many higher quality sites covering the exact same topics, in just as timely a manner is somehow equivalent to censoring Google results in China - is just disingenuous.
        ferdo 13y ago
        > Filtering is not always bad That wasn't the issue. The issue was the word 'censorship' being perceived as a biased word. Only censors or those with the predilection to censor would think the word is "biased".

Raphmedia 13y ago

If users were really disturbed by that change, a new subreddit would simply be created which allow these domains.

revscat 13y ago
That does not address the imbalance of influence moderators have. Also, asking some 1+ million subscribers to switch is inefficient when a process could be implemented which addresses community concerns.
selmnoo 13y ago
There's a reason premium domain names go for a high price: having generic-words for domains is big value. Similarly r/politics is a big deal. Gaining traction on a new subreddit would be a big issue in and of itself even if one set out to create a new politics subreddit. I'm really enjoying, by the way, that Mother Jones is banned. Mother Jones has a self-alleged left stint to it -- but at least they come right out and say it. Contrast that with Rupert's WSJ (hah, its /op-ed/ pieces are right now on r/politics front page!) Since having been bought by Rupert WSJ been leaning more to the right [1], is WSJ going to get banned by r/politics too now? [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html...
- TylerE 13y ago
  Certainly not a requirement. Look back into the reddit dark ages at the /r/marijuana /r/trees schism, for instance.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Since having been bought by Rupert WSJ been leaning more to the right The WSJ is far more liberal than it was a generation ago.[1] The WSJ is sort of Bloombergian in its outlook. Also, Murdoch is not American. Most people consider the UK Conservatives left of center of even US democrats (eg, signle payer healthcare), so again even if Murdoch was pushing the US toward the EU right, it would be moving the the US left. (Another reason why these words are sort of ill-advised). Of course, he's actually Australian. So YMMV. [1] And frankly the NYT link is arguablly an opinion piece.

aaron695 13y ago

> This episode exposes a weakness in Reddit's overall structure Except this was a good decision. If anything it exposes the fail of Reddit's voting system such that theses emotive magazines that directly tap the human brain for uplinks needed to be banned rather than not voted up. Although it all depends, is Reddit just a money making machine? So allowing people to constantly reinforce bad behaviours might be seen as good from a company level?