Looks like r/antiwork mods made the subreddit private in response to this post
This fiasco highlights that such forums are vulnerable to the whims of a few individuals, and if those individuals can be subverted than the entire community can be destroyed. Reddit communities are effectively dictatorships where the mods cannot be held to account, recalled, or dismissed, even when community at large disagrees with them.
This led me to think that Lemmy is currently vulnerable to the same problem. I’m wondering if it would make sense to brainstorm some ideas to address this vulnerability in the future.
One idea could be to have an option to provide members of a community with the ability to hold elections or initiate recalls. This could be implemented as a special type post that allows community to vote, and if a sufficient portion of the community participates then a mod could be elected or recalled.
This could be an opt in feature that would be toggled when the community is created, and would be outside the control of the mods from that point on.
Maybe it’s a dumb idea, but I figured it might be worth having a discussion on.
Here’s a github issue for it, with some other threads linked. @nutomic@lemmy.ml and I are both very sympathetic to the idea, because there’s been so many of these cases where a top mod will wreck or subvert an entire subreddit.
Hierarchical moderation is definitely a weak-point that I replicated here for only one reason: I’ve never seen a system of democratic moderation work in practice. You could hold “elections”, but then who approves the voters, and makes sure they’re legitimate, and not double or triple voting? Now you have to institute a reputation system for the voters. How often do you hold these elections, and what initiates them? Who decides when elections are to be held? How do you circumvent people from “faking” reputation scores, or double voting ( creating many accounts, faking content and upvoting themselves, etc ). How do you prevent someone putting forward 3 of their alt accounts for modship, and voting themselves in?
And then doing all of that is somewhat overkill, and only seen as necessary because of reddit’s obsession with subscriber count, even if 99% of those subscribers are inactive. It takes two seconds for people to subscribe to an alternate, and these alternates sometimes explode in activity within a few weeks. I’ve changed the sorting and emphasis for communities away from subscriber count, and towards active users / month, to mitigate that inertia here a bit.
Also a lot of reddit’s issues wouldn’t be replicated on a server like this where the admins actually participate for the health of their server. If a mod goes rogue, and the community dislikes that, we can just boot them and appoint a different one. If a server creator / admin like myself goes rogue, people can just start their own server. Reddit does not give you that choice.
Again I’m not completely against it, I just have yet to see any system of democratic moderation work on forums or online communities anywhere, and that’s likely an unavoidable consequence of internet anonymity.
Glad to see you’ve already be thinking about it, and those are all excellent points. It is hard to make a system like that in a way that precludes it from being gamed, and voting would require tracking user reputation in some way as well. I imagine it’s something that would need to be tried and refined over time if you do decide to give it a shot. No matter how good the system is, people will continue to look for different ways to game it. So, it’s always going to be an arms race between loopholes being discovered and addressed.
I also very much agree with the emphasis on active users over subscriber counts. Ultimately, it’s the people who actually participate that make the community what it is. Although, jumping communities/servers might be a bit trickier once the scale grows. And this would be an important aspect from activism perspective. If there were a million active users in a community, and it was being used for real world agitation and organizing, then a rogue mod could potentially do a lot of damage.
Thinking a bit more about it, I wonder if a simpler solution than voting could be to allow making communities with restricted mod powers instead. For example, could make it so that community can’t be deleted, mods can’t take it private, etc. And as you note, if the admins are actively participating then they can be used as arbiters for issues like rogue mods. You’re right that this is a big difference from Reddit, and if server admins go rogue then there’s really nothing you can do about that with software anyways. So some trust is ultimately necessary.
I just wanted to float the idea, and I’m also not sure how workable it would be in practice. It’s obviously a bunch of effort to implement and test a feature like this, so it’s worth thinking about the merits before investing the time into implementing it.
I think your suggestion provides some good balance, you’re right in that, even in a decentralized platform, there has to be some local trust/centralization. I find trusting the server admins easier than the community mods, so shifting some of their powers could be good. Additionally, if migration tools are to be developed, a community could fairly easily move itself to another instance, in case the trust on the admins cracks.
Right, since there has to be trust in admins of an instance it might make more sense to move more power to the admins, with federation being a fallback if the admins go rogue.
Although, jumping communities/servers might be a bit trickier once the scale grows. And this would be an important aspect from activism perspective.
100% agree. Especially since communities really do “live” on a server. Another server can have a backup of that community’s history (IE federated content they see on their own server), but if the original server dies, then so does the that community… and it would have to be re-created.
For example, could make it so that community can’t be deleted, mods can’t take it private, etc.
Fortunately besides deleting all your own content, even mods cannot edit or actually database delete anything but their own content. Even a community delete is just a boolean flag, and communities can be undeleted with no harm done.
But yes there’s so much with democratic moderation that has never been tested or implemented, that its completely unpredictable. I’m not sure I would want lemmy to be a test-case for that potential instability, I’d rather have other projects figure out something that works first.
Completely agree with all that. I don’t think this is an urgent concern and, as you note, there aren’t really good examples of the idea having been implemented. It’s something to keep an eye on, but likely not worth trying to pioneer.
deleted by creator
The main problem is that Lemmy is still using a client-server model, so the person or organization who controls the server, can always censor or block local users freely. Federation helps with this mainly by making it much easier to move to another instance. Things like voting for moderators cant solve that, unless it is in a p2p model (which would be a lot more complex).
A middle ground could be to use p2p as a data archiving tool. This way there could be a public archive of the activity from the servers that’s not tied to any server, and if a server goes rogue it would be easy to spin up a new instance from the archive.
There are robust ways to do that. I’ve had discussions about it on Lemmy, so I could find the technical term again if necessary. The idea is to have everyone vote at the same time, and pass a turing test (for example a captcha) during a particular timeframe.
But I had thought of a different possible solution for lemmy. There could be a top-level namespace shared by all instances. So there is only one global “antiwork” community. There can in fact be many with the same name but when you search for c/antiwork you will be redirected to whichever one has the most active users / month. Other communities with the same name can still be found through their URLs. But if there is a mass exodus from the global community to a different one, the new one will automatically take its place in the global namespace.
For the other problem of mods deleting things, tags will help. So you could have a setup where nothing can ever be deleted, only tagged as “deleted”. Users have to turn on “deleted” in their filter and all the posts which were purged will become visible, along with all the deleted spam posts.
Very true. GrapheneOS community sockpuppeting, as I proved, or the recent anti Semite /pol/ brigading observed here, are fantastic examples of how anonymity abusers can work around voting systems and comment/post/user representation numbers.
I call these people “anonymity abusers” because that is what they do, and they do it to me. I experience it and I document it. I have to screenshot everything, and be swift and vigilant. It takes effort. But I do it because I do not want others to face this stuff.
And that also means “democracy” has to ironically stem from morally correct benevolent authoritarianism, because anonymity presents us with this paradoxical situation. There just does not exist any other way for handful humans at the moment. This is probably also why socialism is so important, and demonstrates the problems with individualism in society. Maybe someday with AI and automated systems we could do better, but those are far away in time, and requires AI to also not be morally corrupt or practically faulty.
My anus hurts
Another anonymity abuser hiding behind other instances. Sigh.
proof
Abuse my dick f@ggit
proof
Reported. Bye bye.
ATTENTION LEMMY I THE JOKER AM A BIG FAT F@GGOT
@dessalines@lemmy.ml I need to alert you on this one. This user @TheAnonymouseJoker@narwhal.city is not the same as me, the moderator of c/technology or c/privacy or c/privatelife.
We have an example of yet another clever impersonation attack, this time using other federated instances.
comment
their account
disabled that account from here
looks like deleting the comment didn’t go through though
Thanks a lot! These anonymity abusers are horrible.
Completely agree. I went into more detail elsewhere in this thread but I think the whole question of democratization is just going to lead to feature creep and is better suited for a separate Fediverse project if done at all.
IMO people are overreacting to the effects of the interview; if there’s any lesson, I think its that putting your all your eggs into the Reddit basket for something like antiwork rather than IRL was a poor idea fundamentally.
It seems like it’d require such a level of research that is almost impossible to do it.
Makes sense. That’s why you can have an entire career focused on maintaining free and fair elections (or subverting it).
I see what happened as a flaw in anarchism itself that reminded me of the essay Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman:
This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an “objective” news story, “value-free” social science, or a “free” economy. A “laissez faire” group is about as realistic as a “laissez faire” society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of “structurelessness” does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. Similarly “laissez faire” philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from establishing control over wages, prices, and distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing so. Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women’s movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not). As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware.
r/antiwork users saw it as not just a place to chat but a movement, though a structureless one. It turns out that there was structure all along, dictated not by the users but the corporation, enabling whoever created the subreddit to ban users, censor speech, and act as spokesperson.
The solution is to have an actual IRL party with a formal structure and democratic centralism. If the party wants a web site with user comments, it can make one and appoint moderators who can be recalled by party members. The key is that a real movement must be led by a party, not a structureless crowd on a web site.
One idea could be to have an option to provide members of a community with the ability to hold elections or initiate recalls.
The problem is there’s no IRL party. The “community” is whoever posts here. If lemmy ever takes off, what’s to keep cops, marketers, right-wing trolls, etc. from voting in the election?
Excellent points! There are inherent limits to what can be achieved using online spaces, and any serious movement should organize offline first and foremost. That said, I do think that online spaces play an important role, particularly when it comes to agitation. Western left is just starting to discover ideas like class consciousness, and a lot of people get exposure to these ideas on internet forums such as Reddit and Lemmy. Then they talk to their families, friends, coworkers, and other people they interact with in physical spaces. We need a ways to promote communism with people who have no ideological training and who are looking to make sense of the changing world. This is why I think we need good forums for doing agitation and education. As you note, having an existing IRL organization run something like a Lemmy instance might be a good way to achieve that.
If the party wants a web site with user comments, it can make one and appoint moderators who can be recalled by party members.
I am seriously thinking about this now that lemmy supports private instances with closed registrations… if I host an instance for a party I can also control every setting, and encrypt everything… the only way feds could ever see anything is if they get access to a user account. But I’m not sure if the link aggregator format would work well for party organising.
There’s a sort option for posts called
Newest Comment, that essentially turns lemmy into a forum. It allows “necro-bumping” old posts with new comments so that they never die. It’d be very useful for party work or anything ongoing.It would be possible to create a Lemmy frontend that looks more like a traditional forum. Hopefully someone will start such a project some day.
IMO any such changes towards democratization would probably be best suited to a different Fediverse project entirely given how much it alters the structure of the genre of site Lemmy falls under.
I think the real lesson from the whole fiasco is that people shouldn’t place more political expectations on a subreddit than its capable of handling. Reddit/Lemmy has specific uses it’s good for, and things it’s not good at. Upvotes, subcommunities, and central moderation all contribute to the problems with Reddit but at the same time they stay because they’ve proven to be the most effective at doing what Reddit is built to do. Yet the unfortunate thing is that a lot of movements have begun using Reddit in ways it wasn’t meant to be used.
When it comes to making a sort of rallying point for things like what /r/antiwork was going after, IMO the whole structure of the site would have to be re-thought. And while I think we should begin with experimenting with platform design more, I don’t think it’s a good idea to burden platforms which were designed to act as direct alternatives to mainstream platforms with unnecessary features which may or may not work out.
I agree that a whole new project that’s explicitly designed for organization would likely achieve the best results. I do think it makes sense to keep UX largely the same since it’s been shown to scale well, but the underlying mechanics would need to be rethought.
One point that’s been brought up here a few times is that server admins ultimately have full control of the server, and can even just shut it down. So, a more decentralized architecture would be needed from ground up to prevent this.
The main problem that I think needs to be solved is how to prevent bad actors from ruining a community. This includes external problems like brigading, as well as internal ones such as rogue mods or admins. It has to be assumed that good actors can flip, and there needs to be some process for removing them from power at that point.
You can modify comments
Technically no, they cannot modify comments, at least not through hacky workaround like modifying the CSS and that wouldn’t show up if you’re using New Reddit or a mobile app. The only thing they can do is remove it, or attach a community award to it.
Only Reddit Admins can modify comment, and we all know how well that turned out.
And saying that mods aren’t content creator is reductive. One can be both, not all mods are simple jannies.
I didn’t have a reason to hate u/spez (cause I never paid much attention to the founders and employees), but now I do.
I think that little episode sucked, but it wasn’t sufficient reason to bring on the amount of hate it did, and it was kind of opportunistically used by angry mobs.
The background context was that mods were bringing down the hammer on places like /r/thedonald and /r/fatpeoplehate, (my timeline may be a bit off and those are just illustrative, stand-in examples). The spez thing was weaponized opportunistically by people looking for anything to put reddit mods on the defensive. They wanted to do that because reddit mods were taking action against toxic behavior of terrible communities.
I feel like it’s totally appropriate to take action against people or communities that violate ToS, but to alter comments and change what they’re saying is totally uncalled for. You can ban people, delete their comments, but changing what they said is too much for me. That’s a slippery slope.
I agree that it’s bad, and should be reacted to in proportion, and as I said, there’s a lot of context that suggests that people were taking a legitimately bad thing but nevertheless taking it out of proportion for reasons that didn’t have anything to do with the offense.
I think one of the weird only on the internet style biases that gets exploited by angry mobs is i the nability to take stock of things in proportion to their relative merit.
I’m a bit confused by your stance: are you trying to say that the ends justify the means in this case?
This led me to think that Lemmy is currently vulnerable to the same problem. I’m wondering if it would make sense to brainstorm some ideas to address this vulnerability in the future.
I think yes and no to this. Yes because Lemmy as it currently exists kind of has the same thing going on. People who create the communities are the creators and that’s that.
But no, because federating is supposed to be a mitigation here. I know that mastodon.social and pixelfed have sometimes shut down signups to purposely spread the userbase across other servers, and perhaps some rebalancing across credible servers can help here.
That would be my first idea.
I think I would veer away from elections because that could have unintended cultural effects. They could be gamed, create inward looking drama that makes no sense to people on the outside, etc.
I like the brainstorming here though, and I agree that your suggestion would help avoid that problem, but its at the cost I think of bringing on some unintended consequences. If we can lean into existing features that would be my option A.
That’s been my thinking as well, there isn’t a clear and simple solution to the problem. So, it’s interesting to do some brainstorming to see what can be done to address these kinds of things.
This is a federated reddit alternative. The code is open source. If you don’t like how the community is being run you can branch off and create your own group. That was the whole point of lemmy I thought.
Are you talking about forking the entire project or federating? If federating, I agree. If forking, I think that’s not practical for most people. I think some mastodon drama had people saying stuff like “don’t like it, then go fork it!” which I think effectively was a way of brushing off criticism without meaningfully engaging.
There is one system that could prevent mod abuse of communities and it would actually work, I think, but it’s not easy to implement with federation. Every user chooses their own mod of a community to “subscribe” to their moderation work. So, essentially, anybody could apply to become a mod, and do moderation work, but the only people that would see their moderation work would be the people that have “subscribed” to it. No need to move an entire community, just pick yourself a different mod.
This is of course, difficult to implement, particularly with federation, and the devs are already aware of the idea (it’s in the github issue linked by Dessalines).
Definitely hard to implement, but an idea I’ve never heard of before. Thanks for bringing this up. Cool to think about. Does any other site actually use this moderation technique?
I’ve never used it, but Aether uses something like this + mod voting on top of it.
On a larger scale, stack overflow has moderator elections: https://stackoverflow.com/election/13
I like this! I think, like you say, it’s not easy to do, and I think federating/de-federating or subscribing/unsubscribing is an imperfect proxy to your suggestion. What does suck, though is when a community becomes “too big” and, due to a large audience base the cost of mass migration is substantial.
I think of the drift of a place like /r/IAMA - which used to have the slogan " I Am A, where the mundane becomes fascinating and the outrageous suddenly seems normal." It was more about the anything part than anything else.
But it has sense become a promotion platform for celebrities, having almost entirely left behind its original identity.
Or the drift into racist co-opting of half of the joke subreddits. But in those cases they transform and it’s hard to solve by snipping out the mods.
I thought I was gonna end with a clear takeaway here, but I guess not really. Maybe it’s this: insofar as you can stop it by sniping out bad actor mods, there’s a positive there, especially if it can be done without open voting which can be dominated by angry mobs.
r/privatelife founder here. Not a power mod, not a typical Redditor. Just one of you. This is an important comment for this post. Everyone should read it.
I can not just agree to, but I was the lone wolf that hand to, singlehandedly, take up the colossal task of changing the weirdly propagandistic privacy community scene on Reddit.
r/privacy, r/privacytoolsio and now r/PrivacyGuides are all controlled by the same monolith, the infamous trai_dep and his friends. I experienced and documented what was lots of censorship, insults and harassment (still do). I built r/privatelife alone and when I had 26 members (yes, 26, 2 digits), trai_dep attempted to leverage his power to get me sitewide banned. I had to take help of reddit administration, and since then so many people supported me, I have over 10,000 members that are civil and do not induce paranoia in privacy seekers, or engage in conspiracies.
I was alone and had to fight these demons off in what is still an ongoing crusade to sanitise the privacy community of grifters. I want a pro privacy libre culture, and that is my mission. And that is why I put myself on the frontlines for Lemmy all the time. I do not want those problems coming here. I have been a long term Reddit user, and I am old for most people here, and so I know well what goes on in forums and on Reddit.
Reddit has a problem of moderators being overpowered, and Lemmy admins and folks like us must figure out ways to resolve this virtual dictatorship problem, so there need not be cases like that of mine, where a “senior” privacy community moderator gets to brigade their 200K member communities against one person.
Thought experiment: if a mainstream news outlet (is Fox still considered mainstream in the US? I feel like it’s become a fringe outlet that’s become largely discredited) offered to interview Lemmy’s devs or instance admins, how would/should we respond?
Personally, I would never go on a televised interview, or even a phone interview, just for privacy reasons and because I get crippling stage freight. At most I’d write in with my responses to their questions if they asked me to, though I feel that even that should only be done collectively by the entire dev or admin team.
These kinds of interviews can be done well, but people doing the interviews need to have some media training and to have good answers at hand for the sorts of questions that would be asked. This is a good example of a Fox interview done right. So, I’d say the main takeaway here is that these things shouldn’t be done on a whim, and require lots of practice and preparation to do well. And it definitely has to be done by someone who’s comfortable on camera. A written interview is much easier to do, so that should always be the preferred option.
This led me to think that Lemmy is currently vulnerable to the same problem. I’m wondering if it would make sense to brainstorm some ideas to address this vulnerability in the future.
I’ve been echoing this frequently lately. A lot of comments on Lemmy say that Reddit is hive-mind, censorship by mods, etc. Lemmy is absolutely no different if you get one or several bad-actor mods on the scene. I really like the idea of democratizing the mod of a subreddit, but that might have a host of it’s own issues like people creating alt accounts. Ideally you would have some sort of participation requirement or time limit on the account.
emmy is absolutely no different if you get one or several bad-actor mods on the scene.
There is no “if”. Should Lemmy grow even 1/100th as well as its founders hope, then it will become inevitable that such people join. The probability approaches 1 the larger it gets.
I really like the idea of democratizing the mod of a subreddit
My country just recently voted Trump into office. The office with the big red button that launches a few thousand nukes. The office in charge of the reserve currency of the world.
Democracy might be better than some other -ocracies, but the problem with it is that voters are stupid. This isn’t me being mean to voters, it’s because you can’t not be a stupid voter. There’s never a smart vote to make.
Ideally you would have some sort of participation requirement or time limit on the account.
That only gamifies it. You live in a world where video game players brag how they’ve scored achievements that literally require them to play for 48 hours straight, or to do some obnoxiously boring task every evening for 6 months. Any kind of requirement that isn’t literally impossible will pose no obstacle to the sorts of people you hope to keep out of modship. Downvote me if you like, but you know that I’m right.
Yeah there are a lot of challenges that need to be addressed. I’ve learned that stackoverflow has some form of democratic elections regarding mods which I thought was pretty cool. Also, Trump got elected through an electoral college designed to give fringe groups more power than they should have. Trump would have lost if America voted in a direct democracy model (e.g. popular vote).
Edit: I’m not going to downvote you for your opinions. We’re just discussing here, nothing you said was crazy
I was denied being allowed to be elected as a moderator on an SE site because I joked in my little self-nomination. Was told that meant I wasn’t “serious” about the site.
They elected some other jackass. 3 weeks later he’s closing/deleting my questions because they’re “list questions”. I point out how the question is framed in a way that correct answers would have a finite (and small) number of elements, thus not coming even close to meeting the criteria of a list question.
His response? “Yeh, but more than one more person might answer it, meaning it would be a list of answers”.
If that sounds as dumb to you as it does to me, then you can see why I’m a little reluctant to thinking that democracy will fix online moderation.
This is a big IF, but IF instead users had a way to create referenda to have a mod removed, that might go much farther towards fixing moderation, than voting for them to become moderators ever would. Because with SE, once elected, they’re there fucking things up for a long time, and nothing short of public outcry over some felonious proclivity will cause the SE admins to budge.
His response? “Yeh, but more than one more person might answer it, meaning it would be a list of answers”.
If that sounds as dumb to you as it does to me, then you can see why I’m a little reluctant to thinking that democracy will fix online moderation.
That sounds stupid and bad. What’s frustrating there is people not exposed to accountability (paradoxically happens in “democratic” elections of mods), people can just be confidently wrong and contemptuous. I do like the idea of mods having some accountability (though I also thing there’s a right wing troll thing about always complaining about mods that makes me hesitant to follow that sentiment too far), but some other way than votes to elect mods is probably for the best.
though I also thing there’s a right wing troll thing about always complaining about mods
Well, if this feeling of yours becomes pervasive enough, then it becomes a part of the culture here, that you can’t complain about mods. By extension, you can’t even complain about the concept of moderation.
In truth, whichever faction is the smaller and thus vulnerable to moderation is the one that complains. That just happens to be the right at the moment, since technology (and technology websites) skew young. If they were in charge of the moderation, they wouldn’t be complaining about it, they’d be embracing and celebrating it, and the positions would be reversed.
This isn’t inherently partisan. It’s procedural. Like when Congress complains about the filibuster. Right now Democrats hate it, because it’s used against them. When the Republicans pick the majorities back up in the midterms, they’ll want to get rid of it and Democrats will tell us that it’s the only thing standing between us and doomsday.
That one flipflops because it fluctuates between advantageous and disadvantageous. But moderation is controlled by only one side, and they retain it.
There is no “if”. Should Lemmy grow even 1/100th as well as its founders hope, then it will become inevitable that such people join. The probability approaches 1 the larger it gets.
I’m having a lot of “yes but no” feelings in this thread, and here is another one.
I think the beginning culture of a community has a big influence on what happens downstream, and choices you make in the early days can have long term ripple effects. I also think the structure and features and user experience on a platform have an impact on how people behave on it, and I think there’s a whole grab bag of incentives and disincentives - removing then re-adding karma for text-only posts, disabling downvoting from a user’s comment page, etc. The very existence of upvotes and downvotes, or the way disocverability works, and on and on.
I don’t think that lowest common demoninator is necessarily inevitable, or that if you believe it is that you should use it as a rationale for not doing anything to make it as good a platform as possible. But I also agree with you, that resorting to votes gamifies, and exposes the irrationality of online mobs, which are some unintended consequences.
I guess I think there really are things that can be done (e.g. strong modding, community norms and rules that set a cultural tone), maybe some structural things, but I also believe in the structure as it is now. But I don’t think the democraticizing thing would work as intended.
I think the beginning culture of a community has a big influence on what happens downstream,
It does, but culture is funny. It gets transmitted from person to person, with the larger group’s culture overriding the smaller group’s. This means that when growth hits a certain rate, the once larger group can find itself overwhelmed with the incoming group’s culture.
You won’t be able to control that, either. Or shape it. If you try to throttle the growth, then another curious thing happens… you sap everyone’s reason for wanting to be part of the network. This was reddit once (and Digg before it, and Slashdot before that, etc). When Reddit hit that growth peak, despite the cultural damage, it still felt good to be a part of it… before, there were only a few subforums, and only broad topics were available. Sure, no one minded if you posted something really niche to the big subs (culture still hadn’t completely gone to shit), but the chances of someone else there who also enjoyed whatever that niche thing was were small. So when it got big, and suddenly there were enough people who enjoyed it to have an actual subreddit on it, that (at the time at least) outweighed any cultural erosion.
Until you get the shitfest that it is today.
Some online forums went the other way. The growth never hit that level where cultural erosion occurred… but they then never got big enough to maintain their userbase. Kuro5hin, for instance (that one’s interesting… they had some of the same factional splits you see here already, which just sapped their userbase even more, Hulver left and created Husi, and a third of the users went with him).
In the end, whatever initial culture you initially had is not that important after all. It will either be lost because growth annihilates it, or growth won’t sustain and users drift away.
I also think the structure and features and user experience on a platform have an impact on how people behave on it,
But people have more influence on the structure and features. Thus, they’ll change the the site until bad features abound.
Like, right now. Though moderation is almost certainly the worst approach, you have people here clamoring for more of it, not less.
I do hope that there’s a nonautocratic moderation system before Lemmy gets popular or someone becomes rouge.
I think the r/workreform sub is cringe, we are anti work. Work reform is good too, but not the end goal.
The fundamental idea behind work is that certain things need to be done in order for people to live whether people like doing these things or not. We need to produce food, build housing, provide sanitation, healthcare, and all the other things that make a society function. The necessity to do these things isn’t going to go away, and therefore the idea of work will not go away either.
Yep. Like it or not, crap needs to be done. Compensating individuals fairly for their contributions to society should be a priority for everyone. Currently, people working in low skilled but often physically demanding jobs are severely overworked and underpaid. We really need to start addressing that, and the whole antiwork approach to this is not helping.
The other big aspect of this is the nature of work. One big question we have to ask as a society is why we work, or what purpose our labour and resources are allocated towards.
Under capitalism, the means of production are largely owned by a small group of capitalists and the purpose of work is to create further wealth for these people. Any social benefit from work is strictly incidental, and much of this work can even be actively harmful to society. Corporate lobbyists are an example of a job that creates negative social value.
I think that the purpose of work should be to create social value first and foremost. Any required work should be directed towards making life better for everyone. The only way we can achieve that is through public ownership. We need to move away from the capitalist model and move towards socialism where ownership of the means of production is in the hands of the general public.
That’s labor though, I get that the dishes need to be washed, but at home for example it’s not done through work.
A lot of things can’t just be done at home. For example, compute chip manufacturing, or making things like N95 masks, etc. These are complex research and industrial projects that require a high degree of organization. These simply don’t work as ad hoc efforts where people just do stuff when they feel like it. Basically, what’s described here.
does anyone know what kind of moderation 4chan has? tbh, if it didn’t attract all racists, nazis in the world, i think that kind of forum would be onto something interesting 🤔
Anonymous boards can be a pleasing experience. I’ve been active on 4chan during my late teen years (and on 8chan for a few months), the comfort of anonymity and the impossibility to develop bias toward specific online identities help people to express their mind openly and without fear of being judged or having your shit takes stickied on your front head for the rest of you online persona’s life - which is something I’ve always liked about these places. How ephemeral their content is. Forming a bond with the board’s hivemind and having a place to vent without the fear of being judged is truly a weird and liberating experience, if it wasn’t for all the trash this setup inevitably attracts. I stopped hanging on there for the vitriolic, racist, bigoted posts popping out every two threads, which luckily didn’t radicalize me, they rather had the opposite effect. And also because I was loosing my ability to tell legitimate opinions from overly articulated propaganda ops and well-masked uninformed takes
Every now an then I still have a look at what some anonymous Telegram chats are up to, they’re the only place that offer an anonymous board-like experience and that are moderated. I too wonder what 4chan would be like without the userbase that makes it what it is
I am not fully sure, but from my analysis of nanochan (asuka), 4Chan (hiro, moot), 8Chan (yes not 8kun, I used 8Chan way before shooter incident), 2ch.hk, lainchan and some other chans, many have their invite only admin groups on Discord or Mumble or such services.
As for the moderation, it is as loose as not allowing CP or gore. Rest everything gets allowed usually, making for a nearly free speech zone. The whole concept of anonymous imageboards stands on the shoulders of free speech. And no matter if anyone admits it or not, we are all very chaotic in nature and like the content diversity of chans from an era humanity might never see again. We just tend to have a good moral compass that is not rusty or broken, and we understand the consequences of the immorality that goes on there, and we do not want that tumour to spread.
I was a moderator of an image board once and basically they tell you that you should be lurking and if you see anything that breaks the ToC you should delete it and ban that IP if it’s too horrible. Mind you this image board wasn’t so big (it’s not super small, though) so maybe moderation in some bigger one is a bit more serious.
Not the brightest moment in my life, hehe. sighs in depression
Not the brightest moment in my life, hehe. sighs in depression
Haha hey it’s all good, recognition indicates personal growth!
My thoughts? Lemmy is g@y
obvious spoof of the real “Jesse” :
https://lemmy.ml/u/masu
Aether works like that in theory, but I think that the feature was never created.
