Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

cantsayanything.win

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 188 posts

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#31

Post by dmix »

mariusor wrote: post #30
dmix wrote: post #3

I love reveddit.com, it's hilarious to look at the typical r/science post and see 60%+ of comments removed on average (the 'controversial' ones go 75%+). If the moderators agree with the study there is zero dissent tolerated. This subreddit has something like 1000+ moderators and they remove any comments that doesn't fit into Reddit's very narrowly defined overton window. Not just people being off-topic or taboo... b…

> This subreddit has something like 1000+ moderators and they remove any comments that doesn't fit into Reddit's very narrowly defined overton window Or the subreddit has a very strict set of rules for posting top level comments which include: > 3. Non-professional personal anecdotes will be removed > 4. Criticism of published work should assume basic competence of the researchers and reviewers > 5. Comments dismissi…

Just curious, have you spent time looking at the type of comments getting removed?

Have you looked at any of the top threads on Reveddit/Unddit with 75% of the comments gone?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how it goes way, way beyond those rules you just listed, into something that can only be described as a petty dictatorship - but with any hundred angry nerds who happened to show up playing the dictator.

Zero transparency, zero due process, no one cares.

This sort of excuse (blindly believing all that matters is "just don't be an asshole on the internet and you have nothing to worry about", "just follow the rules on the sidebar") is exactly how this sort of thing happens and no one bothers to look into it. If Reddit had a button to list the comments arbitrarily removed (like Google shows DMCA request removals) you can be sure the outrage would be 100x and those sidebar rules would seem meaningless besides maybe 20% of the time.

I chose r/science because that's a topic that typically prides itself on caring about finding the truth, not about satisfying the ideological whims of the gatekeepers.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#32

Post by fuckstick »

mariusor wrote: post #30
dmix wrote: post #3

I love reveddit.com, it's hilarious to look at the typical r/science post and see 60%+ of comments removed on average (the 'controversial' ones go 75%+). If the moderators agree with the study there is zero dissent tolerated. This subreddit has something like 1000+ moderators and they remove any comments that doesn't fit into Reddit's very narrowly defined overton window. Not just people being off-topic or taboo... b…

> This subreddit has something like 1000+ moderators and they remove any comments that doesn't fit into Reddit's very narrowly defined overton window Or the subreddit has a very strict set of rules for posting top level comments which include: > 3. Non-professional personal anecdotes will be removed > 4. Criticism of published work should assume basic competence of the researchers and reviewers > 5. Comments dismissi…

> Criticism of published work should assume basic competence

What this is saying is that even if egregious blunders are made it is against the rules to call that out - how can I point out incompetence if I have to assume competence?

I host a medical journal club - statistical incompetence in the life sciences is bountiful.

> Comments dismissing established findings

I’m sure defining established isn’t difficult to do/open for abuse. /s

Those aren’t “strict” rules - they are poorly defined rules open up to tremendous interpretation.

Reddit is a cesspool for honest intellectual debate.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#33

Post by mariusor »

dmix wrote: post #31
mariusor wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This subreddit has something like 1000+ moderators and they remove any comments that doesn't fit into Reddit's very narrowly defined overton window Or the subreddit has a very strict set of rules for posting top level comments which include: > 3. Non-professional personal anecdotes will be removed > 4. Criticism of published work should assume basic competence of the researchers and reviewers > 5. Comments dismissi…

Just curious, have you spent time looking at the type of comments getting removed? Have you looked at any of the top threads on Reveddit/Unddit with 75% of the comments gone? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how it goes way, way beyond those rules you just listed, into something that can only be described as a petty dictatorship - but with any hundred angry nerds who happened to show up playing the dictator.…

You call it petty dictatorship, I call it the best moderated subreddit of the whole platform.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#34

Post by Semaphor »

Insights I got from my own account:

a) Reddit randomly decides some posts were spam and shadow-banned them O.o Content was all over the place, from links to link-free text posts. Weird.

b) Low quality subs (/r/europe, /r/Germany, cryptocurrency subs) liberally shadowban all kinds of comments.

All other places this shows, have comments/flairs about the removal.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#35

Post by andy_ppp »

fuckstick wrote: post #32
mariusor wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This subreddit has something like 1000+ moderators and they remove any comments that doesn't fit into Reddit's very narrowly defined overton window Or the subreddit has a very strict set of rules for posting top level comments which include: > 3. Non-professional personal anecdotes will be removed > 4. Criticism of published work should assume basic competence of the researchers and reviewers > 5. Comments dismissi…

> Criticism of published work should assume basic competence What this is saying is that even if egregious blunders are made it is against the rules to call that out - how can I point out incompetence if I have to assume competence? I host a medical journal club - statistical incompetence in the life sciences is bountiful. > Comments dismissing established findings I’m sure defining established isn’t difficult to do/…

It’s better to say I think the authors should have thought about X rather the author is a moron and incompetent for not doing X. You can still say it by critiquing the actions not the character of the person. Similar rules exist in the Houses of parliament around accusations of lying simply because everyone would decend into that as a method of argument. It’s harder to call people out but still possible in my opinion.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#36

Post by dmix »

mariusor wrote: post #33
dmix wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, have you spent time looking at the type of comments getting removed? Have you looked at any of the top threads on Reveddit/Unddit with 75% of the comments gone? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how it goes way, way beyond those rules you just listed, into something that can only be described as a petty dictatorship - but with any hundred angry nerds who happened to show up playing the dictator.…

You call it petty dictatorship, I call it the best moderated subreddit of the whole platform.

You just happen to be lucky enough to be within the very narrow overton window. Or at least a) believe what's being curated for you and b) never cared to look at what's not being said.

You should hope that your views (or more accurately, their views) never stray from it and the information that a tiny group of people are controlling is good for the entire population.

You could say just use another subreddit. But this isn't limited to one.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#37

Post by Teever »

dmix wrote: post #36
mariusor wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You call it petty dictatorship, I call it the best moderated subreddit of the whole platform.

You just happen to be lucky enough to be within the very narrow overton window. Or at least a) believe what's being curated for you and b) never cared to look at what's not being said. You should hope that your views (or more accurately, their views) never stray from it and the information that a tiny group of people are controlling is good for the entire population. You could say just use another subreddit. But this…

Is the window really that narrow, or do you just happen to fall outside it/identify as having fallen outside of it for personal identity reasons?

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#38

Post by fuckstick »

andy_ppp wrote: post #35
fuckstick wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Criticism of published work should assume basic competence What this is saying is that even if egregious blunders are made it is against the rules to call that out - how can I point out incompetence if I have to assume competence? I host a medical journal club - statistical incompetence in the life sciences is bountiful. > Comments dismissing established findings I’m sure defining established isn’t difficult to do/…

It’s better to say I think the authors should have thought about X rather the author is a moron and incompetent for not doing X. You can still say it by critiquing the actions not the character of the person. Similar rules exist in the Houses of parliament around accusations of lying simply because everyone would decend into that as a method of argument. It’s harder to call people out but still possible in my opinion…

Ok, but that’s not what the rule is saying (be civil, no ad hominem, etc). If that were the case I would have no issue. Maybe that would be a reasonable rule - and it is on many forums.

It’s saying that criticism must “assume competence” - that’s very different - and as a moderator I can twist any kind of criticism into a violation of this rule. And why do I have to assume competence anyway - shouldn’t the work stand on its own merits?

And let’s get something straight - “being a moron” is not equivalent to being incompetent (in an area of expertise). One is just name calling the other is a specific legitimate criticism.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#39

Post by andy_ppp »

fuckstick wrote: post #38
andy_ppp wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s better to say I think the authors should have thought about X rather the author is a moron and incompetent for not doing X. You can still say it by critiquing the actions not the character of the person. Similar rules exist in the Houses of parliament around accusations of lying simply because everyone would decend into that as a method of argument. It’s harder to call people out but still possible in my opinion…

Ok, but that’s not what the rule is saying (be civil, no ad hominem, etc). If that were the case I would have no issue. Maybe that would be a reasonable rule - and it is on many forums. It’s saying that criticism must “assume competence” - that’s very different - and as a moderator I can twist any kind of criticism into a violation of this rule. And why do I have to assume competence anyway - shouldn’t the work stand…

The community is 95% less competent than the researchers so I think this rule is fine.

Re: Show HN: Reveddit.com: Improving online discourse with transparent moderation

#40

Post by Mordisquitos »

andy_ppp wrote: post #39
fuckstick wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but that’s not what the rule is saying (be civil, no ad hominem, etc). If that were the case I would have no issue. Maybe that would be a reasonable rule - and it is on many forums. It’s saying that criticism must “assume competence” - that’s very different - and as a moderator I can twist any kind of criticism into a violation of this rule. And why do I have to assume competence anyway - shouldn’t the work stand…

The community is 95% less competent than the researchers so I think this rule is fine.

The same can be said for any community discussing politics, technology, or entertainment. An overwhelming majority of online commenters are ignorant of those fields and the myriad of factors that have to be taken into account by the experts who are making the decisions that are being discussed. So, should comments in those subreddits "assume competence" of legislators, software businesses and TV producers, lest they be deleted?
Post reply on HN