Very interesting and eye-opening talk! I checked one of my old Reddit usernames (I don't really use Reddit anymore) and was gobsmacked at how many (I thought were relatively innocuous) comments that were shadow-banned. And then others in the same subreddit that were nearly identical passed right through! Also some of the links on your slide-deck are just as eye-popping (eg. the public-private discourse document with…
> Also some of the links on your slide-deck are just as eye-popping (eg. the public-private discourse document with crosstabs). Lots of good info in there. Thank you for going through it! Yours is the first comment I've seen mentioning the talk. You've provided some great feedback here that I will incorporate into future versions of any related presentations. > However, I am not sure what to do with this information…
One problem I see with your end-goal of changing moderation tools for a better (and more open and honest) social platform experience is that you will have to use them to do it.
You have already documented the problem with this -- they can shadow-ban you like anyone else! Even more, if the top-brass decides they don't like it they could just totally ban you or mention of reveddit from the entire platform. And it appears that they do like this power, even if it is the censorship that is creating the toxic elements of it because pretty much every one of them uses it. And there is, as you mentioned, a legitimate use for it. So they would have to be convinced to spend resources on changing something that they want and already works for them and in a sense "taking away power" from people that have it now which is always difficult.
So there seems to be a nearly insurmountable chicken and egg issue with making real change, short of convincing someone with vast resources or someone with vast reach to get involved.
Alternatively, your plan of using the toxicity of this censorship to build up enough of a group to make noticeable noise seems to be about the only realistic way. You mentioned doing video shorts like Cheyenne, which can get some notice. Although I suspect her or someone like her might make a much larger initial impact then you just starting out and you may never get traction considering the vast amount of content there.
I suspect too, that even with the videos you would have to thread the needle by combing through and picking out particularly egregious abuses of shadow-banning to avoid having people associate you, the project, or any associated group with any controversial subjects.
Another idea (of working within the system) might be to get volunteers to directly DM people that have had comments and posts shadow-banned, show them the shocking proof on reveddit, and see if they might be recruited to a sub or discord dedicated to making changes or support in some other way even if it is a mention or hashtag etc. From there more discussion and opportunities for growth might emerge. It is possible this could even be automated to start.
One last subjective thought is that this could have an out-sized attraction for people that are libertarians due to the censorship component of it. Libertarians are very ... diverse ... politically, and so if you have some initial traction you might wind up having to "eat your own dogfood" by using your ideas concerning moderation to deal with particularly "hot" topics and people to keep the project/goal on course.
I am interested in this and would like to think about it some more. What is the best way to stay in touch?