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

Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

maximumeffort.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 210 posts

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#91

Post by Natsu »

Toutouxc wrote: post #81
commandlinefan wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> personally affected because they are trans That's something I find surprising about reddit - I can't remember what the exact percentage is, but I think it's something like 0.1% of the world population is trans... but it seems like 90% of the moderators on reddit are. What is it about reddit that attracts them?

I have similar questions about the apparent over-representation of LGBT people among high-profile software developers, but it feels like it's never okay to ask those questions.

I've heard some theorize that there's a link with ADHD, but I don't claim to know for sure: https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/5v6wlq/adde...

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#92

Post by none_to_remain »

jedberg wrote: post #8

I think the author doesn't understand that reddit mods don't work for reddit. In their discussion with the mods they mention "site-wide rules" which makes me think they don't understand that the mods of each reddit make their own rules. On that sub, their rules don't allow people who mostly post links to their own site. It's up to you if agree with their rule, but those are the rules they have chosen. The common resp…

At this point Reddit mods look like unpaid employees to me. This was not the case say, 10 years ago, when Reddit admins enforced the sitewide rules and mods did their own thing. Now Reddit depends on mods to enforce the sitewide rules, instructs them in their work, removes them if their work product is not up to snuff, and I've even seen them demand minimum staffing levels be met.

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#93

Post by bobsmooth »

commandlinefan wrote: post #79
knolan wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I painted it as a political agenda someone else would complain. They are personally affected because they are trans. That seemed the most honest way to phrase it.

> personally affected because they are trans That's something I find surprising about reddit - I can't remember what the exact percentage is, but I think it's something like 0.1% of the world population is trans... but it seems like 90% of the moderators on reddit are. What is it about reddit that attracts them?

There's a big overlap between people with autism and people that are trans.

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#94

Post by paganel »

commandlinefan wrote: post #79
knolan wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I painted it as a political agenda someone else would complain. They are personally affected because they are trans. That seemed the most honest way to phrase it.

> personally affected because they are trans That's something I find surprising about reddit - I can't remember what the exact percentage is, but I think it's something like 0.1% of the world population is trans... but it seems like 90% of the moderators on reddit are. What is it about reddit that attracts them?

Many such cases.

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#95

Post by rootusrootus »

Subreddits seem to alternate between power-tripping moderators who ban for little to no real reason (or even because you are a subscribed member of another subreddit they don't like), and completely open season subreddits with no moderation at all.

HN is so much better, because we self-police more effectively, and because dang is even tempered while still being thorough.

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#96

Post by mistermann »

operatingthetan wrote: post #41
tptacek wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't think that's how HN works at all. Dan can in fact run amok on HN. I don't believe there are significant pressures from YC on how Dan structures moderation here. People unfamiliar with the setup here tend to think about YC first when they think about its management, but they should think about Dan first. My understanding is that things are pretty hands-off; even the perks that YC companies get here are, I…

>Dan can in fact run amok on HN. I don't believe there are significant pressures from YC on how Dan structures moderation here. I'm sorry but this is absurd. If dang had a mental break and decided only cat picture posts were allowed going forward, there would definitely be a conversation. It being hands-off so far means that YC and dang have current consensus and trust exists.

> It being hands-off so far means that YC and dang have current consensus and trust exists.

But this is the very point of contention, and is not actually known.

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#97

Post by flangola7 »

none_to_remain wrote: post #92
jedberg wrote: post #8

I think the author doesn't understand that reddit mods don't work for reddit. In their discussion with the mods they mention "site-wide rules" which makes me think they don't understand that the mods of each reddit make their own rules. On that sub, their rules don't allow people who mostly post links to their own site. It's up to you if agree with their rule, but those are the rules they have chosen. The common resp…

At this point Reddit mods look like unpaid employees to me. This was not the case say, 10 years ago, when Reddit admins enforced the sitewide rules and mods did their own thing. Now Reddit depends on mods to enforce the sitewide rules, instructs them in their work, removes them if their work product is not up to snuff, and I've even seen them demand minimum staffing levels be met.

Reddit is several orders of magnitude larger than it used to be. Managing a social gathering of 500 people has qualitative differences from managing a gathering of 5 people. Strategies that are beneficial at the small scale might not work or even have negative effects at the large scale.

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#98

Post by nemothekid »

digdugdirk wrote: post #72
nemothekid wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a particular mod who has personal reasons to dislike JK Rowling I think it's disingenuous to paint what are likely political reasons as just personal quibbles.

If someone is trans, or cares about trans people, its entirely personal to them. The "issue" isn't always a political one. Yes, the mod in question may be forcing their personal worldview on a subreddit, but the OC's phrasing of the overall situation seems completely accurate.

>The "issue" isn't always a political one.

It's political because JK Rowling actively donates to enact political change for anti-trans legislation. It isn't the case that the recent hysteria is because JK Rowling dislikes trans people.

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#99

Post by dblack12705 »

abetusk wrote: post #74

People are focusing on the Reddit mod narrative but if you go down in the article further, there's some interesting ideas. The author talks about Dunbar's number [0] and does a speculative approximation, saying that good faith communities are about the maximum size of the "friends-of-friends" and some of "friends-of-friends-of-friend" graph. That is, say you trust your friends to have good faith discussion (around 15…

Thank you! The Reddit mod thing was really just supposed to be a catalyst for some of the ideas I had about group size limits, not really the point of the article. Though I WAS a little annoyed by the mods lol.

Edit: rereading your comment this is a very good summary of my article and maybe I should have put something like this up front to stave off the inevitable focus on Reddit mods…

Re: Reddit mods and scaling problems in social control

#100

Post by knolan »

chungy wrote: post #85
knolan wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personal as in their private life or identity is affected, not interpersonal as in a relationship between two or more people or groups. Political would relate to government policies, or how a country is run. I’m flabbergasted that I need to explain this.

That's just plainly false. Their private life was not affected by what JK Rowling has said. Rather, their political opinion differs and a choice to be offended was made. As political protest, the mod decides the best course of action was to violate subreddit rules and spoil a game for people (instead of, you know, offering a counter position to Rowling's views).

You keep claiming it’s political when it isn’t. The mod feels personally that JKR is bad and lashes out on a website to hurt other people. They aren’t protesting the legal status of trans people. They aren’t demanding changes to health care policy. They are saying some rich celebrity is bad and fuck you if you enjoy that person’s creation.

It’s all about personal feelings and has nothing to do with politics. What role does JKRs crusade against the trans community have to do with politics? Does she hold office or set policy?

Unless you’re loosely defining politics as an umbrella term for personal beliefs which makes your initial response moot.

Post reply on HN