I'm concerned that I'm actually loosing IQ points from my time over there, but I can't seem to stop myself returning.
Anyone else?
I'm interested in the gist of your argument - as I think there should be limits on letting mods do whatever they want with subs.
Maybe I'll start calling you Rabbi in a few comments time...
I'm interested in the gist of your argument - as I think there should be limits on letting mods do whatever they want with subs.
Maybe I'll start calling you Rabbi in a few comments time...
My argument was that freedom applies to everyone. For the rules that everyone expects on Voat, you get that with default subs. If it is not a default sub, it can do whatever it wants. This gives users the freedom to continue to use the sub, or to go to another sub.
If its not default, they can do whatever they want. If they censor the shit out of everything, everyone is free to make an alternative and not support the censorship.
My argument was that freedom applies to everyone. For the rules that everyone expects on Voat, you get that with default subs. If it is not a default sub, it can do whatever it wants. This gives users the freedom to continue to use the sub, or to go to another sub.
If its not default, they can do whatever they want. If they censor the shit out of everything, everyone is free to make an alternative and not support the censorship.
The topic is pretty complex, hence I think there are lots of issues to consider.
Regarding freedom: some characters will always push the limits, and it's not practical to give it to them. I think it's better to aim for equality/consistency.
For example, one person's world-defining issue is another's spam. If you give people the freedom to post and comment indefinitely, they might take it, and ruin the experience of others. As another example, if I was a real bastard I might decide to build up a sub and then slowly, as mod, turn the censorship up to ridiculous unjustifiable levels, maybe just to piss people off or hurt the website. There are some levels of mod (and user) behavior that the admins could reasonably decide should not be 'free' in principle. (Though I realize in practice it's hard work to enforce rules that try to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable censorship.)
Other complications: When subs get big can they be promoted to being 'default' subs? If a mod or mods inherit an established sub, are they free to do whatever they like with it? I think even the founding moderator is not the sole 'owner' of a sub, the community (including the site admins) are also part owners, hence I think it's justified to put some limits on acceptable mod behavior.
Regarding users having the freedom to use a sub or go elsewhere. Sometimes that's quite possible (with some inconvenience to everyone), at other times it's not going to make much sense having some tin-pot dictator squatting on the obvious sub name for a topic.
I occasionally wonder if a twin should be created for each new sub: in essence a version that shows the same posts/comments but with minimal censorship. The mods can heavily censor the non-free version, but censored material would still show on the free version. Users would then get to choose which version they view.
The topic is pretty complex, hence I think there are lots of issues to consider.
Regarding freedom: some characters will always push the limits, and it's not practical to give it to them. I think it's better to aim for equality/consistency.
For example, one person's world-defining issue is another's spam. If you give people the freedom to post and comment indefinitely, they might take it, and ruin the experience of others. As another example, if I was a real bastard I might decide to build up a sub and then slowly, as mod, turn the censorship up to ridiculous unjustifiable levels, maybe just to piss people off or hurt the website. There are some levels of mod (and user) behavior that the admins could reasonably decide should not be 'free' in principle. (Though I realize in practice it's hard work to enforce rules that try to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable censorship.)
Other complications: When subs get big can they be promoted to being 'default' subs? If a mod or mods inherit an established sub, are they free to do whatever they like with it? I think even the founding moderator is not the sole 'owner' of a sub, the community (including the site admins) are also part owners, hence I think it's justified to put some limits on acceptable mod behavior.
Regarding users having the freedom to use a sub or go elsewhere. Sometimes that's quite possible (with some inconvenience to everyone), at other times it's not going to make much sense having some tin-pot dictator squatting on the obvious sub name for a topic.
I occasionally wonder if a twin should be created for each new sub: in essence a version that shows the same posts/comments but with minimal censorship. The mods can heavily censor the non-free version, but censored material would still show on the free version. Users would then get to choose which version they view.
I tried to debate with someone about letting people run their own subs however they want.
This apparently makes me a Rabbi and I'm trying to "trick" him.