More
12

I think all of the users here have used a site that fell into a slow or sudden decline, whether it be Reddit, Voat or something else.

In the case of Reddit, it has many problems. Money has been a big issue. The push to remove and censor certain subjects/content from the site in order to appeal to advertisers ended up alienating a lot of users who just wanted somewhere to post/look at stuff and not have it taken down. Going way way back, you could say it started with /r/jailbait, which (I think) was the first sub to be banned. It was definitely the first high profile sub to be banned. The admins were not giving mods the tools they needed, mods were taking things down even though there was nothing wrong with the posts at all and subs started being banned left right and centre. However, Reddit is still around and it seems to be doing just fine, nothing more than a blip on the radar.

Voat benefited directly from the shit happening on Reddit more than once. It started to be linked more and more as more subreddits were banned, more users were banned, Victoria was fired, the blackout happened, Ellen Pao became synonymous with Adolf Hitler etc. This had the effect of bringing everyone who was not wanted on Reddit over to Voat, making it an anti-echo chamber in relation to Reddit. Voat also has a money issue - they aren't really getting any. Another anti-attribute that can be applied to Voat is they are very very very cautious when it comes to banning things or removing things, because they know that censorship is killing Reddit. Unfortunately, this has led to shit content reaching the frontpage every day, a spam problem and the formation of protectvoat, which is basically the same as /r/ShitRedditSays but they claim to promote free speech on the site.

So what can be done here? Is it a roll of the dice to see if we end up with the same echo chamber that exists on Reddit or Voat? Which mistakes do we avoid and how can they be avoided?
I think all of the users here have used a site that fell into a slow or sudden decline, whether it be Reddit, Voat or something else. In the case of Reddit, it has many problems. Money has been a big issue. The push to remove and censor certain subjects/content from the site in order to appeal to advertisers ended up alienating a lot of users who just wanted somewhere to post/look at stuff and not have it taken down. Going way way back, you could say it started with /r/jailbait, which (I think) was the first sub to be banned. It was definitely the first high profile sub to be banned. The admins were not giving mods the tools they needed, mods were taking things down even though there was nothing wrong with the posts at all and subs started being banned left right and centre. However, Reddit is still around and it seems to be doing just fine, nothing more than a blip on the radar. Voat benefited directly from the shit happening on Reddit more than once. It started to be linked more and more as more subreddits were banned, more users were banned, Victoria was fired, the blackout happened, Ellen Pao became synonymous with Adolf Hitler etc. This had the effect of bringing everyone who was not wanted on Reddit over to Voat, making it an anti-echo chamber in relation to Reddit. Voat also has a money issue - they aren't really getting any. Another anti-attribute that can be applied to Voat is they are very very very cautious when it comes to banning things or removing things, because they know that censorship is killing Reddit. Unfortunately, this has led to shit content reaching the frontpage every day, a spam problem and the formation of protectvoat, which is basically the same as /r/ShitRedditSays but they claim to promote free speech on the site. So what can be done here? Is it a roll of the dice to see if we end up with the same echo chamber that exists on Reddit or Voat? Which mistakes do we avoid and how can they be avoided?

38 comments

[–] mamwad 8 points (+8|-0)

I can't be sure. People suck. There needs to be rules, so that content is put in its rightful place and the platform remains entertaining. But, those who enforce those rules inevitably abuse their power. It's a hard balance to strike.

Maybe I was right when we needed a sort of Constitution, whereby user rights are explicitly framed and checks and balances are put in place to prevent abuse. That seems like a Herculean task, though. And, you're never going to please everyone. Especially people who are radicalized politically.

Let's face it. There will never be a utopia on the internet, or in real life. Humans are petty, little apes.
[–] PMYA [OP] 6 points (+6|-0)

Maybe I was right when we needed a sort of Constitution, whereby user rights are explicitly framed and checks and balances are put in place to prevent abuse.

I think this is something Reddit started to do on the defaults a few years ago. Stricter guidelines started being put in place to filter content and make sure it was on topic. The problem is they never stopped adding the guidelines. I can draw a crude comparison between this and what started to happen on ModernPowers. In the beginning, we had a very lenient ruleset, but it was continually abused and we had to start adding countermeasures to keep the game fair and organised. It had the adverse effect of making the game way harder for newer players, as they basically had pages and pages of rules to read through before they could start posting.

It is a Herculean task. In my opinion, we are better off with fewer rules than Reddit, but more than Voat. Voat has started to roll back on rules based on user input, which sounds like a nice thing, but it ends up harming subs because the people who are asking for rule removals are the same people who are repeatedly breaking them. They may not be popular, but they're there for a reason.

We might be better off writing a constitution for moderators, rather than users. Not to give moderators more power, but to try and set in stone what their responsibilities and powers are.
[–] E-werd 3 points (+3|-0)

I think this is something Reddit started to do on the defaults a few years ago. Stricter guidelines started being put in place to filter content and make sure it was on topic. The problem is they never stopped adding the guidelines.

What if we followed a similar model to the original US government, The Constitution not the Articles of Confederation, where we require voting to add new rules/guidelines? Hell, you could do like US does down to subs being like states and new rules require 3/5 ratification. Obviously not all subs would participate, so you'd need it pared down to those that do.

Or some such. Keep it democratic. Bitches love democratics.
[–] PMYA [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

I like the idea, but it isn't practical. It's always going to be susceptible to vote manipulation, no matter how many restrictions are placed on votes. I would support getting rid of the voting system altogether if it wasn't for their function in sorting posts, because they're a very poor way to gauge the opinion of users.

There are also some things users just don't understand because they have no moderation perspective, so giving someone a vote on a subject they do not fully grasp might be a bad idea, as bad as that sounds.

Perhaps we could use the hierarchy system to give voting powers for particular things. Admins give certain users levels like junior admin, which gives them a say in some instances.
[–] mamwad 2 points (+2|-0)

I'm not talking about submission guidelines, I'm talking about explicitly giving users rights. There's a difference. Submission guidelines restrict the user, whereas user rights restrict moderation and administration rights to restrict the user.
[–] PMYA [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

I'm not sure about that. It could very quickly create a "but muh rights" situation and make things quite difficult for moderators or admins.

This is the relevant part of the TOS about moderators:

Moderators are not a part of site staff, and may be removed at any time, for any reason. Moderators may create their own rules as long as they do not violate the terms of this agreement. By becoming a moderator of a default sub, you agree to represent the best interests of the community you moderate. Continuous failure to do so may result in your removal as a moderator.

So at the moment, it basically says that default mods will be removed by admins if they keep fucking up, but mods of non defaults can make their own rules and do whatever they like. What we could do, in order to improve the situation for users a bit, is add another line that says moderators will be held accountable for not following the rules of the sub they moderate. It will mean that either the moderator is removed for being a dick, the user actually has a thing they can point to so they can clearly show the mod is being a dick, or it will mean a new rule is created by the mod to stop whatever it was that the user was doing.

Not perfect but could be a slight improvement.

@Polsaker @pembo210 @Boukert what do you think?
[–] Polsaker 7 points (+7|-0)

Is it a roll of the dice to see if we end up with the same echo chamber that exists on Reddit or Voat?

Just rolled the dice
[–] cloud 4 points (+4|-0)

All right folks, let's pack on up and move out. Magic ball has said all.
[–] pembo210 6 points (+6|-0)

"Phuks - Don't be a dick"
[–] PMYA [OP] 4 points (+4|-0)

I actually put this into the draft of the new welcome page when I was writing it up last night.
[–] Spanko 6 points (+6|-0)

I think often the push of "do not post content I do not like" can lead to less links, and less interesting site overall.
[–] PMYA [OP] 6 points (+6|-0)

I agree. The best way to combat this would be to pull users in from different places to make the topics, posts and opinions more varied.
[–] XorSwap 3 points (+3|-0)

The issue here is that people like to implicitly assume there is the possibility of a site that doesn't suck in some way. I hate to break it to you, but the problem isn't the site, it's the users. Human nature isn't the best irl, and when you add psudo-anonymity to the mix, there's almost no consiquences for making things worse. The only way to have a truly good aggregator site is for it to have few enough users that everyone can police everyone else, or to be curated by one specific person who controls everything. The trick is to accept that all online communities with more than a couple people suck in some way, and live with it.
[–] PMYA [OP] 0 points (+0|-0)

I disagree. Some sites have struck a balance for short periods of time where there were basically no issues. Voat did this at one point. Reddit did it too for a short while.

I think there is something to be said for severely restricting the voting system. Nobody has really done this before. The most popular voting systems are the Reddit voting style, or the no voting style. This could potentially solve the vote brigade problem and stop a lot of bickering.

I don't think it's impossible to create a site that doesn't have problems like this. Improbable, but not impossible.
[–] [Deleted] 1 points (+1|-0)

How about instead of deleting a post, a mod can simply move it to a more appropriate sub? The sidebar should be very explicit when describing what type of content that sub is for.
[–] PMYA [OP] 0 points (+0|-0)

There is a lot of grey area content that could or not could be removed from subs. It is possible that moderation problems would stack up more and more if tons of rules got added to submissions. It's all about finding a balance I think.

idk about moving their post, but pointing them in the right direction would be nice.
[–] [Deleted] 1 points (+1|-0)

When mods exercise visible involvement it's drama. Worked fine on MP because everybody understood the mods role. On the regular subs people just want mods to be janitors.

Take an example scenario. s/funny gets a political post that makes no attempt at being funny (happens non-stop on Voat). Mod can delete the post, message the user about a more appropriate sub, and then everybody screams censorship and we get 3 weeks of drama. Alternatively, the mod can just not say anything and move the post to s/politicalmemes. I think somebody would still scream censorship but it's not going to gain traction.

I think it could be this site's defining feature. You want content to stay relevant to subs but you don't want to censor. This strikes the right balance. Deleting should be for illegal content only.
[–] PMYA [OP] 0 points (+0|-0)

We're actually having a conversation on the MP IRC at the moment about how to deal with mod stuff, and reporting mods for abuse.

hop on
[–] Dantalian 0 points (+0|-0)

People ruin aggregator sites. I bet a site like that was entirely like subreddit simulator would last forever.

©2016-2022 Phuks LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ToS | Privacy | Changelog | Canary | Donate | Bugs | License
Served by 08495c768707