4 ms·

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 wa

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".
        staringispolite 13y ago
        If your position is that the word censorship does not have a negative connotation, I don't know anyone who would agree with you, including, it would seem, your earlier comments. I'm positing that filtering has neither a positive nor a negative connotation; that all information gets through anyway, it's only low-quality sources of the same information that are filtered; and that calling it censorship in a comment inappropriately pre-disposes the reader to a negative reaction.

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".
        staringispolite 13y ago
        If your position is that the word censorship does not have a negative connotation, I don't know anyone who would agree with you, including, it would seem, your earlier comments. I'm positing that filtering has neither a positive nor a negative connotation; that all information gets through anyway, it's only low-quality sources of the same information that are filtered; and that calling it censorship in a comment inappropriately pre-disposes the reader to a negative reaction.