3 ms·

The problems with unfettered anonymity / harassment stem from two major "features" of reddit: It's trivial to make a new account that doesn't even have so much

The problems with unfettered anonymity / harassment stem from two major "features" of reddit: It's trivial to make a new account that doesn't even have so much as an email address tied to it, and it's almost as trivial to make a new subreddit community like /r/punchablefaces and grow a community of "like-minded" people. The only way to do this that wouldn't require added staff would be to a) require these features to have some traceable information, like an email address, or b) require these features to cost money, or at least only allow subreddit creation if you've donated reddit gold in the past or something.

richmarr 11y ago
I don't know, I think making anonymity more expensive is addressing the symptom rather than the disease. I'd be more interested in looking at ways to nudge the behaviours exhibited in those groups so that the degree of groupthink was reduced rather than amplified. Reducing anonymity is one possible lever but has down-sides. There are other options, for example you could change the way moderation worked. The moderation 'rules' for /r/CoonTown for example are a recipe for an echo chamber: "Dissenting opinion is allowed but don't insult CoonTown or its residents... No posting about 'good' blacks". You could reduce the control moderators have to set their own rules, and that may help nudge conversation back in the direction of free speech from the current system of fiefdoms.
- lastres0rt 11y ago
  I'm loathe to reduce the number of powers moderators have. Yes, it gives echo-y mods the ability to create their own echo chamber, but free and "unmoderated" *chan sites tend to do that anyway. Most of the moderators who wanted more accountability from Reddit want MORE power to protect their users, not less. You do that by introducing consequences for user behavior, and that requires increasing the "cost" on users somewhere down the line. We're never going to have Joanna with an EMP cannon on the doorsteps of the trolls, but we can dream.
  - richmarr 11y ago
    I said change, not reduce. Mods want 'more power to protect their users' because they want to protect their users, and having more personal power themselves is the first solution a mod would think of, but doesn't address the extremism problem. The power would be exercised in a non-uniform way. I'm guessing I'd try something along the lines meta-moderation, so that a mod who bans someone from /r/Coontown for saying something nice about a black person would have that decision examined after the fact and brought in line with a more standard policy.

richmarr 11y ago

I don't know, I think making anonymity more expensive is addressing the symptom rather than the disease. I'd be more interested in looking at ways to nudge the behaviours exhibited in those groups so that the degree of groupthink was reduced rather than amplified. Reducing anonymity is one possible lever but has down-sides. There are other options, for example you could change the way moderation worked. The moderation 'rules' for /r/CoonTown for example are a recipe for an echo chamber: "Dissenting opinion is allowed but don't insult CoonTown or its residents... No posting about 'good' blacks". You could reduce the control moderators have to set their own rules, and that may help nudge conversation back in the direction of free speech from the current system of fiefdoms.

lastres0rt 11y ago
I'm loathe to reduce the number of powers moderators have. Yes, it gives echo-y mods the ability to create their own echo chamber, but free and "unmoderated" *chan sites tend to do that anyway. Most of the moderators who wanted more accountability from Reddit want MORE power to protect their users, not less. You do that by introducing consequences for user behavior, and that requires increasing the "cost" on users somewhere down the line. We're never going to have Joanna with an EMP cannon on the doorsteps of the trolls, but we can dream.
- richmarr 11y ago
  I said change, not reduce. Mods want 'more power to protect their users' because they want to protect their users, and having more personal power themselves is the first solution a mod would think of, but doesn't address the extremism problem. The power would be exercised in a non-uniform way. I'm guessing I'd try something along the lines meta-moderation, so that a mod who bans someone from /r/Coontown for saying something nice about a black person would have that decision examined after the fact and brought in line with a more standard policy.