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

71–80 of 188 posts

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

#71

Post by tsol »

otikik wrote: post #47
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…

My take: science has been politicized. As a result people feel like they are entitled to share their (often naive and inexperienced) opinion. Problem is this: science is not democratic. Consensus plays a role, but not everyone getting to the point were you are equipped to peer review others often takes years of effort and study. That’s unavoidable, given that the easy questions have already been answered. A single ……

>Problem is this: science is not democratic.

The problem with this; who gets to decide what's right? The institution of science has had this issue before, and decided no one group is capable of always doing that. Hence it is decided using consensus and the scientific method. It's easy to say 'only allow professionals' but there ARE professionals with controversial opinions that will still get mobbed.

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

#72

Post by pluc »

Scharkenberg wrote: post #70
Semaphor wrote: post #34

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.

Subs cannot "shadowban" users themselves. Either one banned and gets a notice, or one isn't banned at all. Comment removal initiated by moderators themselves is not "shadowbanning" - that's something Reddit's automated mechanisms (and maybe admins too) do. I think you meant "content removal without explanation" instead. I will say, however, that for about half a year now or even more, reddit's own anti-spam detection…

We experienced that too, at a much higher rate. Mods would get blamed for deletions AutoMod would do. Turned into quite a shitshow.

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

#73

Post by loceng »

rhaksw wrote: post #6
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…

> 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%+). Yeah I mention r/science at 7:00 in the linked video. > 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 ove…

Doing keyword analysis (and perhaps sentiment analysis) could be a really powerful/valuable way to see what subreddits have what ideological biases, most especially political-heavy subreddits; in particular ON KEYWORDS/topics in DELETED COMMENTS.

For example, /r/CanadaPolitics - the moderator /u/_Minor_Annoyance (a username that fits into the category of "demon troll" nicknames that Jordan Peterson has defined) is heavily biased to the Liberal party of Canada/the establishment narrative, and anyone who questions or posts anything (truthful) that counters their narrative or makes the "Liberals" or Trudeau look bad gets deleted most commonly (even if highly detailed and very substantive) under the subreddit's "Rule 3 - Not substantive": "Keep submissions and comments substantive."

It's sickening [if you understand the consequences of it].

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

#74

Post by Pigalowda »

pluc wrote: post #60

I was a mod, this tool is the worst from a mod's perspective. In a sub with 100k-200k people, I would spend all my time telling users why I took action. Instead I take action when content breaks rules, and it's your responsibility to abide by the rules to not have your content deleted. This tool complicates the life of people who give their time for free, and asks them to provide even more time solely to satisfy user…

Did you ever have a feeling of being Tom Sawyered into doing free work for Reddit? Moderation may provide some feeling of authority and control which i suppose could be pay-off enough but in the end its just free work.

I suppose if I created my own little subreddit and curated its contents that would be different but moderating tens of thousands of users must be just a crappy chore. For you was it a slow transition from fun curation to work like chore as the subscribers grew?

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

#77

Post by MonkeyMalarky »

Scharkenberg wrote: post #70
Semaphor wrote: post #34

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.

Subs cannot "shadowban" users themselves. Either one banned and gets a notice, or one isn't banned at all. Comment removal initiated by moderators themselves is not "shadowbanning" - that's something Reddit's automated mechanisms (and maybe admins too) do. I think you meant "content removal without explanation" instead. I will say, however, that for about half a year now or even more, reddit's own anti-spam detection…

Is there option for preapproving/hiding comments from new users in a subreddit? I'm thinking of a certain regional politics sub where on the main page, you'll see XX number of replies, open the thread and it be completely empty for a couple hours.

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

#78

Post by pluc »

Pigalowda wrote: post #74
pluc wrote: post #60

I was a mod, this tool is the worst from a mod's perspective. In a sub with 100k-200k people, I would spend all my time telling users why I took action. Instead I take action when content breaks rules, and it's your responsibility to abide by the rules to not have your content deleted. This tool complicates the life of people who give their time for free, and asks them to provide even more time solely to satisfy user…

Did you ever have a feeling of being Tom Sawyered into doing free work for Reddit? Moderation may provide some feeling of authority and control which i suppose could be pay-off enough but in the end its just free work. I suppose if I created my own little subreddit and curated its contents that would be different but moderating tens of thousands of users must be just a crappy chore. For you was it a slow transition f…

Never, because the subject matter in the sub I moderated was very local (a city sub). It never felt we were enforcing reddit's rules but our own, and so we never felt like we worked for Reddit but for our community. And that's really where they get ya, cause aside from /r/reddit.com, everything has this "this is your space" feeling. That's becoming less and less true with all the shit they're pushing to monetize users/content though

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

#79

Post by feet »

sokoloff wrote: post #58
feet wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes me think about comment sections here on HN when a study on psychedelics gets posted. Suddenly 90% of top comments are all personal anecdote about mushrooms or whatever.

That seems normal to me. I click and comment on the articles on topics that interest me. Aviation articles will have aviation buffs over-represented. Math articles math buffs. EV articles will have EV buffs and people with an opinion about Teslas over-represented. For psychedelics, the effect might be more pronounced because there aren’t that many people casually interested and/or those who are are reading and not wr…

Right, but it's all personal anecdote. Not commentary on studies or research. If the guidelines for the subreddit are to keep things more focused on research it would make sense to me for mods to remove the massive amount of anecdote that comes out of the woodwork.

Sure people can be interested in using psychedelics themselves, but they want the discussion to focus on research

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

#80

Post by rhaksw »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #66
rhaksw wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> science is not democratic I strongly disagree, it's inherently democratic. The scientific method is all about making mistakes and trying again. Discourse is all about sharing knowledge. Open societies do this effectively. Jonathan Rauch, in Kindly Inquisitors (1993) wrote, > Authoritarian systems have their intellectual giants. What they lack is the capacity to organize and exploit their masses of middling thinkers…

It might. What would happen then? I'd argue there'd be a lot of good discussion. Why bother though? There are thousands of places you can have that discussion, including on Reddit. You can set up, say, /r/scienceforall right now and establish the rules you want. The /r/science sub has decided that it’s a space which should have heavy moderation - a totally legitimate viewpoint with obvious benefits and costs. You mig…

> Why bother though?

See 18:20 [1] and 19:52 [2] in the talk linked on this post. Nobody will visit r/scienceforall because r/science will remove references to it. Plus, forcing me to set up a group doesn't sound like a solution, it sounds like a shake down. To get an open discussion space I have to moderate it, and then have the social media site threaten removal of my mod powers if I fail to remove something they don't like within their desired time frame. That means I have to review every piece of user-submitted content. No thanks. Transparency and light-touch moderation would be more efficient.

> The /r/science sub has decided that it’s a space which should have heavy moderation - a totally legitimate viewpoint with obvious benefits and costs. You might not agree with the balance, but the beauty is you don’t have to.

My issue is with the system, not moderators. Legally speaking, shadow moderation may be in the clear, but it's still harmful for society while we have just a few major platforms. We should all know and share what's going on.

[1] https://youtu.be/aCadmiIfbcI?t=18m20s

[2] https://youtu.be/aCadmiIfbcI?t=19m52s

Post reply on HN