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?
©2016-2022 Phuks LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ToS | Privacy | Changelog | Canary | Donate | Bugs | License
Served by c7693d2284ae