21–30 of 155 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about Reddit mods?
If I start a subreddit, I become a moderator. Reddit didn’t ask me to start the sub so I’m not sure it would be the same thing. Unless they are actively recruiting mods for larger subreddits, perhaps.
By this logic, shouldn't the people posting questions also be considered illegal volunteers?
I dont think so. The question askers and answers arent expected to do anything, and you could argue they are doing it out of their own self interest, which is the whole point of the site. In other words, they are the customers. Moderators on the other hand are held to certain standards, have to maintain a certain amount of moderations, and are actually doing it to better SO as a whole.
ETA: So because of the psychic toll that it may or may not take on volunteer moderators, moderating for free for a for-profit company is illegal?
I guess I can understand this: It's half protecting people from getting into an unhealthy psychological trap where they're on a hamster wheel for a for-profit company but their reward is continued volunteer status rather than income. And it's half forcing for-profit companies to redistribute wealth by mandating that essentially no labor shall be free.
Unfortunately that hurts people who, with their eyes open from the beginning, want to volunteer and who don't care that the organization is making money from it. It also hurts companies by shrinking their labor pools for tasks that could potentially be shifted to volunteers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I start a subreddit, I become a moderator. Reddit didn’t ask me to start the sub so I’m not sure it would be the same thing. Unless they are actively recruiting mods for larger subreddits, perhaps.
The law doesn't seem to make a distinction about who initiated the relationship, only the nature of it. And the existence of organized/moderated subreddits is definitely an "integral part of the employer's business."
It also raises questions about the status of Instagram influencers, you-tube personalities, or anyone on a platform that derives it's value from those it hosts but does not treat/pay them as employees.
Even games with user-generated/managed content. If a game developer is paid for generating content, why would the create of such user-generated content not qualify?
Virtually anywhere someone is doing something that they arguably could be paid for would seem subject to a law like this.
When users write a comment (such as what I'm writing right now on Hacker News), they are acting as writers who generate text for people to read. When they submit a link, they are locating content for people to read. When they upvote or downvote, they are acting somewhat like editors by helping to curate content.
In traditional media (a newspaper, for example), these functions would typically be performed by paid staff. In social media, it doesn't work that way.
But then the whole point of social media is to interact with other people. And interaction is two-way. You could argue that the value users receive from interacting is the reason they come to the site. And consuming content is part of that value, but you could also argue that being heard is part of the value you receive as a user.
When I do any of any of these things, am I doing labor by giving up my valuable time in service of the business? Or am I receiving value because the site allows me to be heard? Maybe the answer is both. Probably we should look at every aspect of the transaction.
Continuing the newspaper comparison, look at letters to the editor. Does anyone argue that people who write letters to the editor are unpaid volunteers? Not that I know of, because everyone understands that people write those letters because they want their opinion to be heard. So even in traditional media there's a little precedent for this.
I'm sorry but this law is kinda ridiculous.
Why just moderating? In a sense, it's every action you do that adds value to the site by drawing people in or improving their experience. When users write a comment (such as what I'm writing right now on Hacker News), they are acting as writers who generate text for people to read. When they submit a link, they are locating content for people to read. When they upvote or downvote, they are acting somewhat like editor…
In practice, that means that normal commenters or people using social media aren't relevant for two reasons:
* There's minimal control over their actions from the 'employer'. There's some basic rules on what content is not allowed, but nobody says "you must write a question about Java every day". You can use the tools available however you'd like, and you have freedom over when and how you use SO/social media - there's no obligation to post with any specific frequency. That's not true for moderators: they have specific tasks they must complete, and they must continue to be active, or they lose their moderation status.
* There's no permanent relationship: you can use social media/SO once, leave, and return any time you like, and leave again. This is not true for moderators.
moderators, why not contributors too? can any for profit be associated with open source or similar without falling under one of these laws?
(When they try to control all the PMs, etc but accept public work when it happens to fit, then I do think they are in the grey area.)
edit-terms&redundancy..