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

A competitor crippled a $23.5M bootcamp by becoming a Reddit moderator

larslofgren.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 996 posts

Re: A competitor crippled a $23.5M bootcamp by becoming a Reddit moderator

#111

Post by cap11235 »

SilverElfin wrote: post #107
neilv wrote: post #84

I don't know about this particular case, but, generally... bad actor subreddit moderators have been an occasional thing for well over a decade. And it's also been widely known for that long that Reddit is an influential venue in which to take over a corner -- for marketing or propaganda. What's an equal concern to me is how insufficiently resilient Reddit collectively appears to be, in face of this. A bad actor mod o…

> A bad actor mod of a popular subreddit can persist for years, visibly, without people managing either to oust the mod, or to take down the sub's influence. This happens because the regular users have no power. I remember seeing some article that said a small number of mods control most of the popular subreddits. Many of them put their own bias into the system by banning users, banning sources, deleting content base…

When the mods of major subs are also mods for over a hundred other subs, you have to doubt how much actual moderating they are actually doing in their holier-than-thou positions.

Re: A competitor crippled a $23.5M bootcamp by becoming a Reddit moderator

#114

Post by JoshTriplett »

elephanlemon wrote: post #76
Braxton1980 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Mods can ban anyone for any reason Yes, they can and that's how it's set up. Each community makes their own rules and can choose who participates. It's not Reddit. It's the sub that made the decision and I'm not sure how it would be possible for Reddit the company to deal with sub level rule complaints and appeals.

I think it would be better if Reddit took more ownership. In other words, instead of hosting a platform where anyone can claim a subreddit as their little domain, and then it’s theirs forever, Reddit could say that the subreddits belong to the people that use them. For example, perhaps they could institute some sort of system where members of a subreddit could vote out moderators who abuse their power.

> For example, perhaps they could institute some sort of system where members of a subreddit could vote out moderators who abuse their power.

Leaving aside everything else wrong with that, that would be trivial to abuse, especially with the help of sockpuppetry but easily enough even without that.

Re: A competitor crippled a $23.5M bootcamp by becoming a Reddit moderator

#115

Post by blindriver »

ceejayoz wrote: post #19
blindriver wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're proving my point. At least in the US half of the country is right wing. If you want an accurate crowd-sourced opinion you need to take that into account, regardless of your own beliefs.

90% of people might believe 2+2=5, but that doesn’t make them correct . Facts aren’t a majority rules scenario.

The comment was specifically about "opinions" not "facts".

Re: A competitor crippled a $23.5M bootcamp by becoming a Reddit moderator

#117

Post by genghisjahn »

cap11235 wrote: post #111
SilverElfin wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A bad actor mod of a popular subreddit can persist for years, visibly, without people managing either to oust the mod, or to take down the sub's influence. This happens because the regular users have no power. I remember seeing some article that said a small number of mods control most of the popular subreddits. Many of them put their own bias into the system by banning users, banning sources, deleting content base…

When the mods of major subs are also mods for over a hundred other subs, you have to doubt how much actual moderating they are actually doing in their holier-than-thou positions.

Is there a source for this?

Re: A competitor crippled a $23.5M bootcamp by becoming a Reddit moderator

#118

Post by cap11235 »

GenerWork wrote: post #106
michaelnovati wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might. I have hordes of documents. It's a really sad situation and very sad that he characterized this this way without even talking to me whatsoever.

I believe the phrase that applies here is "put up or shut up". If you have hordes of documents to draw on as primary sources, then it should be pretty simple (but perhaps time consuming) to write a rebuttal.

I have the concept of a plan. /s

Re: A competitor crippled a $23.5M bootcamp by becoming a Reddit moderator

#119

Post by lambda »

hyperhello wrote: post #93
lambda wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL that there's a conspiracy theory that Ghislaine Maxwell is the same person as power mod MaxwellHill. Seems like a pretty incoherent conspiracy theory. What a weird thing to believe.

Did the mod stop when she went to prison?

Yes, the mod stopped posting publicly around the time she went to prison. That seems to have been the catalyst for the conspiracy theory.

But it was actually a couple days apart; he stopped posting before she went to prison. And he actually posted to some private subs, and was involved in some DMs, after he stopped posting publicly and after she went to prison.

There's really very little evidence other than a vague coincidence of when he left Reddit and when she went to prison, and the name.

And, like, if she were posting anonymously, why would she use that name?

It's basically just completely incoherent. Like many conspiracy theories, they take a lot of other random data points, and if you sift through and cherry pick enough data points you can find others that taken out of context look like coincidences. But that's just because you're cherry picking between two large distributions of data.

Re: A competitor crippled a $23.5M bootcamp by becoming a Reddit moderator

#120

Post by nick49488171 »

analog8374 wrote: post #72
dang wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't banned.

But you could. And you wouldn't even need a reason. In fact, you could ban AND make the whole conversation disappear. And nobody would ever know. That's a problem.

If he did this habitually, I think word would get around. This is a pretty small community.
Post reply on HN