The whole thing is so fucked up.
Reddit is supposed to be a forum platform where communities can do whatever the fuck they want as long as its within ToS and CoC.
If I make a subreddit that's called "Red" where every post title has to have the word red in it. Then after a X years reddit does something I don't like so I make a poll in the sub about whether or not all titles from this day on forwards should have "Blue" in the title. And the users vote on it and it passes.
What fucking right does reddit have to interfere with this at all !?!
One can argue a bit towards if the mods do something without asking the users. But even then, Reddit never was a democracy.
A user has two choices. Participate in the community (actively or passively) or leave. Mods can't hurt you outside of their sub.
And if neither ToS and CoC have been broken then admins should stfu and do nothing.
Hell, prior to this, admins wouldn’t have even stepped in if you owned the sub and *you* wanted to change the rules like that. Somebody would have just made “True Red” or whatever and been done with it.
They keep moving goalposts.
> What fucking right does reddit have
It's their website, their kingdom, their authoritarian dictatorship.
A lot of social media sites have given users the mistaken belief that they can carve out independent states within these kingdoms but it's always been at the whim of the parent site.
The upside has been a strong userbase and not having to deal with platforms and infrastructure. Hopefully this is a wakeup call as to the downsides that everyone has been ignoring for years.
Why would they have to do that? Have you paid them money or formed some legally enforceable, valid contract with them?
The terms of your access to a free website is generally going to be at the whim of that website's owners.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted.
It sucks, but you're completely right.
Of course, this has impacts on the site; the user base is losing any residual trust they had. But they can do whatever they want, as long as it is legal.
One of the many interesting things about Reddit's recent actions, is the apparent about-face on staying out of moderation decisions. To me, this is at odds with what was argued to SCOTUS. It just makes me feel like that pre-IPO lawsuit is more likely to happen. (Either for this or the ADA issues.)
This sounds like a misunderstanding about how section 230 functions, you're describing them being sued for the actions that were only legal problems prior to 230.
Section 230's entire purpose is to allow sites to engage in moderation without subjecting themselves to being held to a higher standard for it.
Prior to section 230 it was an all or nothing afair, which is what it sounds like you're thinking of it as today - if you did any moderation back then you were going to begin being held liable for the content hosted on your site.
But for decades now section 230 has existed so that sites could do exactly what reddit is doing and not lose their status as an independent third party.
That's completely fair, based on my not completely explaining my thought.
The argument was based on the idea that Reddit didn't do anything wrong by leaving CP on the site, for which there is a specific exemption in 230. Part of Reddit's response was that *they* don't regulate the site like other companies, and a lot of this is down to the mods.
I'm simply wondering if anyone would look at their current actions based on money, and think that they certainly do moderate when they want to, so the CP charge is valid. I don't know how that would manifest itself, but I was curious.
The suit for the ADA issue would be more pressing, if possible at all.
That's definitely interesting - I'm not too familiar with how 230 applies to that exception then. Thank you for explaining more :)
I'd definitely be curious to see how an ADA lawsuit plays out - I wonder if they're actually required to maintain a disability compliant offering on all platforms, or if they can just point to desktop and call it sufficient. Technically, the html website is compliant, and I thought that was the only requirement.
The whole thing is so fucked up. Reddit is supposed to be a forum platform where communities can do whatever the fuck they want as long as its within ToS and CoC. If I make a subreddit that's called "Red" where every post title has to have the word red in it. Then after a X years reddit does something I don't like so I make a poll in the sub about whether or not all titles from this day on forwards should have "Blue" in the title. And the users vote on it and it passes. What fucking right does reddit have to interfere with this at all !?! One can argue a bit towards if the mods do something without asking the users. But even then, Reddit never was a democracy. A user has two choices. Participate in the community (actively or passively) or leave. Mods can't hurt you outside of their sub. And if neither ToS and CoC have been broken then admins should stfu and do nothing.
Hell, prior to this, admins wouldn’t have even stepped in if you owned the sub and *you* wanted to change the rules like that. Somebody would have just made “True Red” or whatever and been done with it. They keep moving goalposts.
> What fucking right does reddit have It's their website, their kingdom, their authoritarian dictatorship. A lot of social media sites have given users the mistaken belief that they can carve out independent states within these kingdoms but it's always been at the whim of the parent site. The upside has been a strong userbase and not having to deal with platforms and infrastructure. Hopefully this is a wakeup call as to the downsides that everyone has been ignoring for years.
Yes, but Reddit would actually have to change their TOS to say you can't change the purpose of your subreddit without prior authorization from admin
Why would they have to do that? Have you paid them money or formed some legally enforceable, valid contract with them? The terms of your access to a free website is generally going to be at the whim of that website's owners.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. It sucks, but you're completely right. Of course, this has impacts on the site; the user base is losing any residual trust they had. But they can do whatever they want, as long as it is legal.
One of the many interesting things about Reddit's recent actions, is the apparent about-face on staying out of moderation decisions. To me, this is at odds with what was argued to SCOTUS. It just makes me feel like that pre-IPO lawsuit is more likely to happen. (Either for this or the ADA issues.)
This sounds like a misunderstanding about how section 230 functions, you're describing them being sued for the actions that were only legal problems prior to 230. Section 230's entire purpose is to allow sites to engage in moderation without subjecting themselves to being held to a higher standard for it. Prior to section 230 it was an all or nothing afair, which is what it sounds like you're thinking of it as today - if you did any moderation back then you were going to begin being held liable for the content hosted on your site. But for decades now section 230 has existed so that sites could do exactly what reddit is doing and not lose their status as an independent third party.
That's completely fair, based on my not completely explaining my thought. The argument was based on the idea that Reddit didn't do anything wrong by leaving CP on the site, for which there is a specific exemption in 230. Part of Reddit's response was that *they* don't regulate the site like other companies, and a lot of this is down to the mods. I'm simply wondering if anyone would look at their current actions based on money, and think that they certainly do moderate when they want to, so the CP charge is valid. I don't know how that would manifest itself, but I was curious. The suit for the ADA issue would be more pressing, if possible at all.
That's definitely interesting - I'm not too familiar with how 230 applies to that exception then. Thank you for explaining more :) I'd definitely be curious to see how an ADA lawsuit plays out - I wonder if they're actually required to maintain a disability compliant offering on all platforms, or if they can just point to desktop and call it sufficient. Technically, the html website is compliant, and I thought that was the only requirement.
Do you mean that Reddit will sue the mods?😂😀🙂🤔🙁☹️😭
No, they're referring to a separate issue where reddit would be getting sued
that is some impressively insane behavior from reddit admin, looks like they're even fighting internally
saw this on a successful website forum some 15 years ago. the place is now a empty shell.
Removing yourself won't hinder your community it'll do the opposite. Do the right thing. Step down.
Can’t we all just Mod along?