I see a significant difference between AOL and Reddit. AOL selected the monitors and had the power to remove their privileges. That's what made them essentially employees. Reddit moderators are mostly self-regulated. Even in the large subs new moderators are chosen by other moderators and rarely is a moderator of a sub involuntarily removed, except if they have abandoned the sub or violated the terms of service. I can see how Reddit is not obligated to pay them because they volunteer by their own will and not at Reddit's discretion.
The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)
21–30 of 68 posts
Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)
#22This is partly what is happening. Reading in out of the loop subreddit the trigger is Victoria but the problem is different. The one I see as one of the biggest problems is. The unpaid volunteers aren't given the tools necessary to handle moderation of subreddits by reddit corporate. The tools moderators use comes from third parties and volunteers. [0] As an outsider I have understand why they are angry, trying to cr…
I'm not sure the reddit community (either moderators specifically, or redditors in general) are intelligent enough to know what tools they need. I once tried to suggest a new tool, and was attacked there for 3 weeks after on subredditdrama for requesting such a tool. My crime? Suggesting that moderators be able to ban everyone who (wrongly) upvotes an offtopic post. This would allow them to steer things back on topic…
Suggesting that moderators be able to ban everyone who (wrongly) upvotes an offtopic post
Reddit already has a problem with moderator abuse and nontransparency, and you want to give them the ability to ban people based on their votes? The literally only control that a user has over content?
I can see why you were "attacked". That is an awful idea.
Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)
#23Given the market cap of Facebook is $245 billion and it has 1.44 billion active users, then each user is $170 (170 == 245/1.44). If each user generates $1 for Facebook each quarter, that's $4/yr which is an annual return of 2.3% (2.3 == 4/170).
I'm not sure where I stand on calling users "sharecroppers". Seems a little unreasonable. But the economics of it are interesting and concerning.
Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure the reddit community (either moderators specifically, or redditors in general) are intelligent enough to know what tools they need. I once tried to suggest a new tool, and was attacked there for 3 weeks after on subredditdrama for requesting such a tool. My crime? Suggesting that moderators be able to ban everyone who (wrongly) upvotes an offtopic post. This would allow them to steer things back on topic…
Suggesting that moderators be able to ban everyone who (wrongly) upvotes an offtopic post Reddit already has a problem with moderator abuse and nontransparency, and you want to give them the ability to ban people based on their votes? The literally only control that a user has over content? I can see why you were "attacked". That is an awful idea.
Indeed. I think I read once that HN weights votes or comment positions by how often someone is drawn in by political "honey pot" stories. I don't know if it's true, but it at least suggests less drastic alternatives to banning for voting.
Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)
#25Having trouble getting past the author's failure to distinguish between the web and the Internet... :-P
Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure the reddit community (either moderators specifically, or redditors in general) are intelligent enough to know what tools they need. I once tried to suggest a new tool, and was attacked there for 3 weeks after on subredditdrama for requesting such a tool. My crime? Suggesting that moderators be able to ban everyone who (wrongly) upvotes an offtopic post. This would allow them to steer things back on topic…
Suggesting that moderators be able to ban everyone who (wrongly) upvotes an offtopic post Reddit already has a problem with moderator abuse and nontransparency, and you want to give them the ability to ban people based on their votes? The literally only control that a user has over content? I can see why you were "attacked". That is an awful idea.
I don't know, in my experience, Reddit is much more rife with low-quality posting and bandwagoning than moderator abuse. It happens on rare occasions, but most accusations of moderator abuse I've seen have turned out to be nothing more than some first-world anarchists trying to stick it to the man and a bunch of other people bandwagoning on. Meanwhile, most subreddits with more than 10k posters are just awful because it's so hard for moderators to actually moderate the community (see, for example, all the true* subreddits that have sprung up just to create less popular versions of popular subs).
Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)
#27What's the problem with letting the community work 'for free'? They are receiving benefits, even if non-monetary. Peer recognition, control, power...
If foobar.com's forums asks me to an un-paid moderator and I gladly comply, I have no right to decide 6 months down the road that I shouldn't have been doing that work for free and deserve payment for it.
Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suggesting that moderators be able to ban everyone who (wrongly) upvotes an offtopic post Reddit already has a problem with moderator abuse and nontransparency, and you want to give them the ability to ban people based on their votes? The literally only control that a user has over content? I can see why you were "attacked". That is an awful idea.
Indeed. I think I read once that HN weights votes or comment positions by how often someone is drawn in by political "honey pot" stories. I don't know if it's true, but it at least suggests less drastic alternatives to banning for voting.
That sounds like the same basic idea -- moderators putting a mark on posts that basically says, "An upvote for this is a negative contribution to the community." Is the problem with the general idea, or with one specific detail which could be modified in implementation (banning versus ignoring votes)?
Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)
#29What's the problem with letting the community work 'for free'? They are receiving benefits, even if non-monetary. Peer recognition, control, power... If foobar.com's forums asks me to an un-paid moderator and I gladly comply, I have no right to decide 6 months down the road that I shouldn't have been doing that work for free and deserve payment for it.
Work laws are weird like that. There are certain things you can't consent to even if you really want to.
For example, you can't agree to work for less than minimum wage, you can't agree to work for free to get rid of a debt, you can't agree to have sex with someone in exchange for money.
These things apply even if you voluntarily sign a contract saying you consent.
Re: The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014)
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure the reddit community (either moderators specifically, or redditors in general) are intelligent enough to know what tools they need. I once tried to suggest a new tool, and was attacked there for 3 weeks after on subredditdrama for requesting such a tool. My crime? Suggesting that moderators be able to ban everyone who (wrongly) upvotes an offtopic post. This would allow them to steer things back on topic…
Suggesting that moderators be able to ban everyone who (wrongly) upvotes an offtopic post Reddit already has a problem with moderator abuse and nontransparency, and you want to give them the ability to ban people based on their votes? The literally only control that a user has over content? I can see why you were "attacked". That is an awful idea.
Since a moderator can kill an entire post, nullifying "the only control that a user has over content" anyway, is it really going out on that big of a limb to allow moderators to ban people who, say, upvoted child porn to the top of r/politics?