> Reddit does say, however, that it can eject moderators who are inactive and that “we step in to rearrange mod teams, so active mods are empowered to make decisions for their community.” The pro-blackout r/AdviceAnimals moderator who was ejected was accused by their fellow mod of being inactive for a year.
So after a while, since the subs are private, there won't be any activity to moderate and thus the moderators will become "inactive," at which point someone else can request the subreddit.
> If a moderator team unanimously decides to stop moderating, we will invite new, active moderators to keep these spaces open and accessible to users. If there is no consensus, but at least one mod wants to keep the community going, we will respect their decisions and remove those who no longer want to moderate from the mod team.
Moderators exist to moderate a community, not to shut it down wholesale. Reddit's response is the only reasonable one they could have made. If the majority of your userbase likes sub X and some mods (fewer than 10 for such a sub) want to shut it down, then of course Reddit would open it back up.
People here on HN and Reddit decrying this as the end of Reddit likely don't remember all of the controversies of Reddit over the past 17 years since it's been active. Hell, most of the current userbase came in after the most recent blackout in 2015 due to Ellen Pao firing Victoria. This has all happened before, with no effect to Reddit, indeed, much the opposite, seeing their user growth numbers.
anyone can make a redditrequest - doesn't mean it's actionable. per the r/science request
> As of right now, that subreddit currently has recent human moderator activity, so it is not available for Redditrequest at this time. Please note that not all moderator activity is visible to others who are not mods of that sub. But feel free to message the mods and let them know that you'd like to help out, though they are not required to add you.
> Also, please note that if there is not active moderation in the future, it will become available for Redditrequest at that time.
It's funny how the pic they keep posting says "recognize any of these third-party app icons?" Well no, I actually don't. Probably very few people do. Oh, you say the bots are going to break too? Sounds good to me.
The bots will break...for a few days until selenium based alternative APIs pop up to interact with the site with.
Personally, I'll be purging my 10+ years of content from the site and moving on. I just about only interact with Reddit through Sync for Reddit, and will not continue through the official app or website...so that's that.
I find it funny that in another story the worst CEO of any tech company was talking about instituting "democratic tools" where users of the subreddit could vote out a mod
How about he puts the API changes to a "democratic vote", some how I doubt it loves that kind of democracy.. He like many others only likes democracy when he can control it.
Yes, because any decision regarding community management tools need to also apply to business models, these two things being so similar and probably have the same impact for the long term viability of the company.
Next time any company does a poll on Facebook for the name of their next product, we should impose that they also decide the amount of employees they should hire / fire through the same channel.
>>“I would like subreddits to be able to be businesses if they choose,” he said
>>“If you’re a politician or a business owner, you are accountable to your constituents. So a politician needs to be elected, and a business owner can be fired by its shareholders,” he said.
>>“And I think, on Reddit, the analogy is closer to the landed gentry: The people who get there first get to stay there and pass it down to their descendants, and that is not democratic.”
So clearly is thinks running a business (which is considers subreddits to be buisnesses) in a democratic way is grand.
> Moderators exist to moderate a community, not to shut it down wholesale. [...] If the majority of your userbase likes sub X and some mods want to shut it down, then of course Reddit would open it back up.
I wonder how that will work for subs that posted a poll asking whether they should join the blackout, and got 80%+ of users voting "yes"?
It's not just the mods, but users can also enjoy sub X and simultaneously disagree with the decisions that reddit is making. Remember, mods were users first. Also, if you think that users like sub X, then it's worth considering how much the mods like sub X if they're willing to put their own time in to help make the sub run smoothly. It's not like they're getting paid.
I think it's doublespeak - Reddit will not "unilaterally" force any subs to reopen, all they will do is look for any single person to moderate instead, and replace any resistant mods with new ones. So as long as 1 person per community agrees to open and moderate, Reddit can say it wasn't unilateral because they found at least 1 person who agreed with their position.
Reddit, instead of playing games like "oh you must have been inactive", they should just replace all mods with Reddit employees. Every single sub.
I mean, why wait? If the plan is to do IPO, then as a publicly traded company they will need accountability and so forth. What process do they propose to have in place where BillyBob moderator of whatever sub allows something alarming?
Can I sue Reddit because they endorsed BillyBob's hypothetical action by allowing them to be in a position of representation without signing a code of conduct?
This whole soap opera is a waste of time. Mods are done for as soon as IPO approaches. Stock traders aren't going to tolerate randoms running subs.
No this method prevents liability. It’s like Facebook private groups. If there’s anything wrong you deflect the blame and remove the group/moderator.
This lets you get the best of both worlds. Outsource the responsibility and the blame.
Mods are meant to be replaceable scapegoats. Also stock traders don’t care. Some investment bank will trot it out on a road show to mutual funds promising the IPO pop and everyone goes their merry way.
They aren’t switching to paid moderators because their business model is unable to support paid moderators. They also have an army of willing volunteer moderators that they can throw under the bus if something goes wrong.
If they destroy the sustainable part of their business right as they go into IPO, that won't look good at all. Also they would need to currate tens of thousands of communities, many about niche subjects, in a variety of languages. Reddit simply does not function without the community moderating itself. Even Twitter relies on the community to add warnings under tweets at scale.
If reddit's leadership had cojones they would do just that and show mods who disagree the door.
Friendly reminder that they do it for free. The reason they are mad is that they think they're losing their power tripping automod tools which wouldn't be the worst thing to have happen to that site.
The 3rd party apps excuse is a red herring. It's entirely because mods don't want to lose the automodding hell they've created on that site.
> It's entirely because mods don't want to lose the automodding hell they've created on that site.
That's what I'm wondering with the talk about making moderating difficult. Like if someone only mods 1-2 subs are the tools in the official app and desktop site not sufficient? Or is it only going to make it difficult for power mods that oversee 10s to 100s of subs? I agree if it's the latter then good.
It's the latter entirety. Take a look at the recent data posted about how most sub automods are on the free tier.
Basically power mods who run several subs are toast. Whether this was intentional or not is besides the point. It's the best possible outcome from everything.
The wording is double speak and I don't think they've made their minds up yet.
No volunteer will want to work with an org that will boot them off when they need to use an app to make their lives easier to moderate because reddit wants to monetize. Quality will suffer as respectable moderators won't be sticking around.
If reddit was more strategic, they'd build a moderation tool that's just as good to replace Apollo. Then maybe this issue might have been less of a problem -- more importantly, they should have engaged with the moderators in the first place. But I think at the senior management level, they're too focused on monetizing their data which resulted in this knee jerk reaction.
28 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 52.2 ms ] thread> Reddit does say, however, that it can eject moderators who are inactive and that “we step in to rearrange mod teams, so active mods are empowered to make decisions for their community.” The pro-blackout r/AdviceAnimals moderator who was ejected was accused by their fellow mod of being inactive for a year.
So after a while, since the subs are private, there won't be any activity to moderate and thus the moderators will become "inactive," at which point someone else can request the subreddit.
---
Edit: A better link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36347711
> If a moderator team unanimously decides to stop moderating, we will invite new, active moderators to keep these spaces open and accessible to users. If there is no consensus, but at least one mod wants to keep the community going, we will respect their decisions and remove those who no longer want to moderate from the mod team.
Moderators exist to moderate a community, not to shut it down wholesale. Reddit's response is the only reasonable one they could have made. If the majority of your userbase likes sub X and some mods (fewer than 10 for such a sub) want to shut it down, then of course Reddit would open it back up.
People here on HN and Reddit decrying this as the end of Reddit likely don't remember all of the controversies of Reddit over the past 17 years since it's been active. Hell, most of the current userbase came in after the most recent blackout in 2015 due to Ellen Pao firing Victoria. This has all happened before, with no effect to Reddit, indeed, much the opposite, seeing their user growth numbers.
Many mods also opened up their subs recently, and users don't seem to care in those subs, it seems.
Have there been any big subreddits that protested, opened and asked the users for feedback, then closed again?
Seems once they asked the users, the users voted to open back up.
* going back into blackout once again: 88.6k points
* showing solidarity by blacking out only on Tuesdays going forward: 7115 points
* staying public and not going back into blackout: 7178 points
What subs have voted to open up?
> As of right now, that subreddit currently has recent human moderator activity, so it is not available for Redditrequest at this time. Please note that not all moderator activity is visible to others who are not mods of that sub. But feel free to message the mods and let them know that you'd like to help out, though they are not required to add you. > Also, please note that if there is not active moderation in the future, it will become available for Redditrequest at that time.
If you look at the admin comment posted on /r/ModSupport, it is likely that they'll support a redditrequest sooner or later.
Personally, I'll be purging my 10+ years of content from the site and moving on. I just about only interact with Reddit through Sync for Reddit, and will not continue through the official app or website...so that's that.
How about he puts the API changes to a "democratic vote", some how I doubt it loves that kind of democracy.. He like many others only likes democracy when he can control it.
Next time any company does a poll on Facebook for the name of their next product, we should impose that they also decide the amount of employees they should hire / fire through the same channel.
You clearly did not read the story [1]
>>“I would like subreddits to be able to be businesses if they choose,” he said
>>“If you’re a politician or a business owner, you are accountable to your constituents. So a politician needs to be elected, and a business owner can be fired by its shareholders,” he said.
>>“And I think, on Reddit, the analogy is closer to the landed gentry: The people who get there first get to stay there and pass it down to their descendants, and that is not democratic.”
So clearly is thinks running a business (which is considers subreddits to be buisnesses) in a democratic way is grand.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/reddit-protest-blacko...
I wonder how that will work for subs that posted a poll asking whether they should join the blackout, and got 80%+ of users voting "yes"?
It's not just the mods, but users can also enjoy sub X and simultaneously disagree with the decisions that reddit is making. Remember, mods were users first. Also, if you think that users like sub X, then it's worth considering how much the mods like sub X if they're willing to put their own time in to help make the sub run smoothly. It's not like they're getting paid.
I mean, why wait? If the plan is to do IPO, then as a publicly traded company they will need accountability and so forth. What process do they propose to have in place where BillyBob moderator of whatever sub allows something alarming?
Can I sue Reddit because they endorsed BillyBob's hypothetical action by allowing them to be in a position of representation without signing a code of conduct?
This whole soap opera is a waste of time. Mods are done for as soon as IPO approaches. Stock traders aren't going to tolerate randoms running subs.
This lets you get the best of both worlds. Outsource the responsibility and the blame.
Mods are meant to be replaceable scapegoats. Also stock traders don’t care. Some investment bank will trot it out on a road show to mutual funds promising the IPO pop and everyone goes their merry way.
Friendly reminder that they do it for free. The reason they are mad is that they think they're losing their power tripping automod tools which wouldn't be the worst thing to have happen to that site.
The 3rd party apps excuse is a red herring. It's entirely because mods don't want to lose the automodding hell they've created on that site.
That's what I'm wondering with the talk about making moderating difficult. Like if someone only mods 1-2 subs are the tools in the official app and desktop site not sufficient? Or is it only going to make it difficult for power mods that oversee 10s to 100s of subs? I agree if it's the latter then good.
Basically power mods who run several subs are toast. Whether this was intentional or not is besides the point. It's the best possible outcome from everything.
No volunteer will want to work with an org that will boot them off when they need to use an app to make their lives easier to moderate because reddit wants to monetize. Quality will suffer as respectable moderators won't be sticking around.
If reddit was more strategic, they'd build a moderation tool that's just as good to replace Apollo. Then maybe this issue might have been less of a problem -- more importantly, they should have engaged with the moderators in the first place. But I think at the senior management level, they're too focused on monetizing their data which resulted in this knee jerk reaction.