Mods react as Reddit kicks some of them out again: “This will break the site”
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Holy shit, they are finally doing something about karmawhores! Not in a particular effective way, they can just alt themselves to kingdom come, but they are doing it.
It was sometimes very telling where those mods were participating in, and given that they've also recently implemented features to make that more difficult (anonymized moderator replies, hidden mod lists, hidden user histories) but haven't really addressed the alt issue, it may have to do more with those embarrassments. Bye bye to the last vestiges of self-incrimination Reddit provided for.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Breaking news: Reddit is on fire again. In other news, rain contains water and Twitter is full of Nazis. More at ten.
-
First picture I found on Google for each because I'm lazy but there they are with pictures attached.
Piefed
Lemmy
Mastodon
Pixelfed
Most of these names are absolutely atrocious.
-
This post did not contain any content.
putting limits on the number of subs a user can moderate is like putting limits on the number of articles a wikipedia editor can edit.
typically moderation is an opt in job and you want people who actually want to do it to keep things going smoothly. all this will do is make the pool even smaller which will lead to subs becoming more toxic.
-
Another easy way is to use a VPN like Mullvad. They block you and you can't see anything.
I DO use Mullvad! It's only $5 a month. I love it.
-
There's a real sunk cost fallacy going on when you've been on Reddit for, say, ten years - until you realise that karma, reputation, and awards and stuff are just bollocks.
When I was on Reddit I use to nuke my account completely every 12 months or so, so I cannot relate...
-
Most of these names are absolutely atrocious.
To be fair, are there any social media platforms that don't have a kind of stupid name?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Hope one of them is the fuckwad that banned me years ago
-
One the one hand I can understand the issue that one person wielding mod power in many subs is a problem, especially if that mod is prone to abuse of the mod position.
On the other hand, some subs, especially smaller ones, might go modless.
What I would have done differently is that I would not align this rule on the number of subs alone. The size of a sub should also be a factor, as well as overall number of mods in those groups. A good solution would be not as easy as what they propose.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Tbh, I'm active in some modless subs, and apart from the occasional spam or lost redditor it mostly works. r/Arduino (iirc) for example is unmoderated and not exactly small.
People downvote garbage content and it gets hidden fast.
Compare that to e.g. r/showerthoughts which is so heavily moderated that you need a masters degree just to manage to post there without getting your content deleted or r/WiiUHacks where the mods ban you for mentioning the wrong Wii U hacking project (e.g. Pretendo) even though you broke no rules.
The AI moderation is crap as well, but the upvote/downvote system is robust enough to work as a makeshift automoderation system.
-
Hope one of them is the fuckwad that banned me years ago
did you get banned from r/kangaroo for posting a wallaby?
-
Limiting the power mod reach is a good thing, but still, this will break Reddit. Ordinary users will not be lining up to step in as small time moderators. Especially if Reddit Inc is going to remove them if they do anything they don't like.
Reddit Inc will just go "what the hell, we'll throw more AI shit in the Automoderator. It's not like it'll do worse than the current arbitrary quagmire of moderation rules - or maybe it will be, who can tell the difference anyway".
wrote last edited by [email protected]"Worse" only being "less engagement in the next quarter."
AI mods are probably pretty good in that respect. Random bans don't really matter, they can stick to the party line, and letting a bit more controversial or ragebait disinformation through is a plus. In the short term.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Limiting the number of large subs a user can moderate is a good way to a) limit their power b) reduce misinformation campaigns.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I got banned for criticizing billionaires.
-
Sadly the few subs I frequented are still active and more useful than their Lemmy counterparts.
You can only lead horses to water.
-
This post did not contain any content.
If /r/wallstreetbets would just move to Lemmy, I'd have no reason to ever look at reddit at all. Wallstreetbets has been pretty solid on giving me tips to make money recently. The rest of the site is trash.
-
putting limits on the number of subs a user can moderate is like putting limits on the number of articles a wikipedia editor can edit.
typically moderation is an opt in job and you want people who actually want to do it to keep things going smoothly. all this will do is make the pool even smaller which will lead to subs becoming more toxic.
I think it's a pointless change, it's not too difficult to create multiple identities if you wanted to moderate multiple subreddits. The actors trying to control subreddit moderation for commercial or political purposes will not be slowed down by the requirement that they maintain multiple identities.
If they wanted to 'fix' the comment toxicity problem, they could require x active moderators per active user. If it goes above that then non-subscribers can't comment. The rules don't mean much if there are 10,000 people commenting on each of 3 posts and there is 1 moderator who's afk and checking the report queue a few time per day.
Also, if you notice from most of Lemmy, having a smaller community creates social pressure for people to behave better. Once it gets to the point where you never see the same person twice people think they can behave badly because nobody knows them.
-
moderating more than five subreddits with 100,000 monthly visitors.
I mean, that's clearly a rule that considers size of sub a factor, so, um, what?
It's social media, people only react to the headlines... they don't educate themselves on the issue because that would interfere with them generating the next hot take.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I got a lifetime ban after 12 years on Reddit. I still have no clue why, and I really, really don't care.
-
This post did not contain any content.
How is no one mentioning the abuse on r/conservative where spewing all kinds of falsehoods, and xenophobias and you are gold, but trying to provide factual information gets banned?
I think there are more things to worry about than the number of groups someone helps moderate.
And alsothere is no recourse against improper bans. I was banned from my corresponding country sub because a moderator misinterpreted something I said.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It’s definitely Reddit attempting more censorship and manipulation of the front page, but I’m still happy the powermods are being fucked.
