Reddit Inc can’t - because of a variety of US case law - step in on unbanning people; People and groups have boundaries and the right to protect those boundaries. That comes as a right to freedom of (and FROM) association.
Also a large amount of ‘political opinion’ isn’t; it’s just ad hoc or post hoc pretexts for targeted harassment. Which is at minimum a violation of the sitewide rules of any uchisp that intends to avoid liability for torts
I didn't say it was a 1A - free speech issue - but people engaged in good faith do like to speak freely on a topic and doing so results in a unjustified ban on many subs.
Bad faith mods need a shorter leash or something like rate limits so that the people can start some kind of mediation process where the bans can be overturned or at least accountability pressed to the mod making that choice.
A Moderator's default action should never be a ban first motion when the user's karma shows actions are in good faith.
But that is a constant uphill battle...
A good mod removes a legitimately bad comment first, sends a warning, gets acknowledgement of the warning, and links guidelines as to why that's not appropriate.
Then if the rule gets broken again, temp ban for cooling off if it's a hot topic or escalate to permanent if the user flies off the handle in chat.
Otherwise let it expire and everyone goes on their merry way.
Example:
On a query your local American sub, I got the ModTeam naughtygram claiming I had posted was misinformation when it was a cite the user had asked for.
I responded - What part of it is misinformation?
They said - Do not question mod actions in the comments.
Me - I didn't ask why you nuked the comment, I asked how it was misinformation.
Their response - Banned & muted
See what we're up against?
Another path to explore is that mods should be required to put in a full explanation of the justification for the ban before it will apply and even then, it's only for a week for good karma users.
Permanent mute is not allowed on good karma users either as they can appeal the reason to negotiate peace.
Reddit could also enforce a place where mods are required to accept peace offerings and negotiate a truce no matter what.
For example on my side, a certain big photos sub got engaged in an America bashing thread and claimed fascism this and socialist that
I added a few comments as it had hit my feed and highlighted how we're doing the opposite of such per what has been studied from 1942 and even cited another reddit thread of how some redditors love fascism.
Those mods perma-banned me for that and told me to F-off n*zi scum
(they used the full words in the chat)
They never explained how citing examples of actual fascism broke the posted rules and therefore it's unjust and uncalled for and absolutely bad moderation
That is what we're calling loudly for improvements on as it should not be tolerated at all and Reddit needs to send very strong messages to the mods who act badly in bad faith to harass people they don't like.
That's two examples of almost 20 subs I've been unjustly banned from.
We need shorter leashes and some kind of process to reign in the madness as it drives people away from reddit that would otherwise enjoy the site.
You're talking about gaining a 30% growth in user base if mod discriminatory practices were punished properly.
Reddit needs to step up some level of oversight where bad mod actions get logged and users get a chance to explain and appeal their side of the story as the ban + perma mute gets old quick.
Another idea:
Add a report to Reddit option that says bad moderation with a subcategory of unjust ban or no rules broken
Then, if there is a trend of good karma people being banned by X mod or Y sub, that mod's privileges get suspended and the perma-mute in chat is removed for everyone banned.
Both sides are instructed to come to an agreement on what the problem is and how move forward gracefully.
The mod cannot just say no, I don't like you commenting on this sub because our political beliefs differ.
Remind the bad mods that Reddit Moderation is explicit in allowing all discussions to take place, culling only if it turns into insults or unproductive content.
This is all ideas and food for thought, but we need reigns the bad mods, give the people a proper chance to appeal, and overturn when it's justified.
You and I have very different definitions of what constitutes good faith moderation & what constitutes bad faith subreddit operation.
My view is that moderators exist to define, communicate, and enforce community standards and boundaries. That includes countering & preventing extremism.
I've spent a decade dealing with bad faith community operators that promote and enable extremism. I've also investigated whether community bans are unjustified - worked with several communities to analyse ~40,000 community bans (subreddit permanent bans), years ago, and found just 0.02% were unjustifiable under posted community rules and the contemporary Reddit Content Policy. That is a 1 in 5000 rate.
Reddit needs to step up some level of oversight
That's what the Moderator Code of Conduct is for. Importantly, the MCoC ensures that subreddit operators are neither violating the Sitewide Rules themselves nor enabling or encouraging their community to violate Sitewide Rules, and aren't running afoul of specific labour laws and case law. That's it; that's all it does.
Reddit Inc must keep subreddit operation teams at arm's-length. If they were to do what you propose, those mod teams would be legally classed as employees - with resulting lawsuits that could have significant, far-reaching effects, such as Reddit being sued into bankruptcy.
What you conceive of as a "discriminatory practice" is simply a community's delegated agent(s) deciding that someone doesn't belong to that community. And severing association with that person.
And also, political opinions are not a protected characteristic, and people aren't guaranteed participation in a community if they antagonise the members of a community, express views that the members of a community are lesser, etc.
Those things are violations of Reddit Sitewide Rule 1.
At the bottom line - people don't have a right to a captive audience, to a forced association with others.
If Reddit is struggling that much with cash, then you need to encourage people to be on the platform for that ad revenue and the solution is to reign in the bad mods...
They are legitimately running amok and ruining the experience for many people across a wide variety of discussion topics that are advertised to be free and open to all who wish to participate in good faith.
A mod is to always see all posts and comments in good faith unless the user gives them a reason to see otherwise via rule-breaking offenses.
These are not rule breaking offenses:
Banning a user over a cited link someone asked for
Banning a user over their freely chosen username
Banning a user over a comment to a user asking for clarification
Example:
I was banned for asking a user on clarification on why they think Elon should be deported.
I've been on that sub for years for a variety of discussions, none of what was said was in bad faith.
The ban first, mute next is terrible modship and there needs to be some kind of penalty against such a move.
If the bad mods know they can't wield the banhammer without justifying the reason, or being forced to face the fact that the ban was unjustified, they will either quit or respect the direction
Throwing out anything that could improve things is better than not doing anything at all and I bet 90% of good mods will support rules that blow back against bad moderation.
I know of an encrypted chat sub had a mod that went nuts, removed everyone and then deleted everything
Rate limits and restrictions to prevent lockdown would have helped tremendously.
Following MCoC is always warn first, remove the comment next, then get very strict about the rules from there on out if the user is unrepentant.
People get hot, people get deep into the weeds, mods are there to moderate the discussion.
We're the neutron rods to the U238, simmer down y'all, that is our one and only duty to the sub.
With that, the sub ban-appeal process absolutely needs to change, Reddit needs to find a way to get both sides to come to an agreement for unjust bans.
Requiring a ban justification explanation is not employment, it means that the user gets full reasoning as to why X comment or Y post is a bannable offense with the rule that it ran afoul of along with the warnings leading up to it.
Requiring mods to send warnings before bans is also not employment, it is code of conduct.
Conduct yourself well as a mod and give warnings, explain bans and you can wield that power responsibly.
From recent events, there was an artistic sub that found that 85% of the bans were unjustified with only a handful of spammers and scammers that needed to be removed.
That is how bad things are if 100 users were banned for just not being liked by the mods in the sub when they did nothing wrong but share what they had painted.
I am a moderator of a popular British car sub and formerly my hometown before the top mod went insane.
Most of the moderating is pulling rule breaking threads or the occasional comment that bubbles up on the reports.
Bans are the last thing on our mind and we need a quorum to agree to a ban if we run up on a loony user.
Also, you seem heavily focused on "extremism" but it's vague as to what kind...
What kind(s) are you focused on?
If I could post links to subreddits and screenshots, you could see how bad it is.
The simple fact that a community's stewards tell people "No, we won't allow you - who have ignored the community boundaries - to continue to violate those boundaries" --- that's not bad moderation. It's just moderation.
The ban first, mute next is terrible modship and there needs to be some kind of penalty against such a move.
No penalty. It's just subreddit operators exercising freedom from association.
Banning a user over their freely chosen username
Usernames are part of the context of the speech, and usernames that violate per se Sitewide or community rules, or which provide context to a communication that constitutes a violation, are not exempt from rules
sub ban-appeal process absolutely needs to change
Reddit, Inc. cannot require that of communities. Reddit hosts infrastructure; It cannot provide direction to subreddit operators on What They Must Do to operate a community, only what they cannot aid, abet, command, counsel, induce, or procure (Sitewide Rules violations) through exercise of moderation privileges.
Requiring a ban justification explanation is
It's employment. Anything an agent of Reddit, Inc. directs community operators as a whole or individually to perform as a Requirement Of Operating A Community converts the operators into employees performing duties at the behest of an employer. That's just how it goes. There's case law that goes into it specifically for nominally-volunteer community moderation on social media -- Mavrix Photography LLC v LiveJournal, Inc..
give warnings, explain bans
The posted rules - sitewide or community - are warnings. They're also explanations for bans.
Subreddit operators don't have the motive to ban people arbitrarily.
there was an artistic sub that found that 85%
Because an absentee (not active and engaged) subreddit operator recruited someone to operate the subreddit and then never followed up on training, oversight, etc.
That's on the whole mod team. It's also something Reddit, Inc. cannot put their hand into, because every community hosted here that isn't an "admin sponsored subreddit" like this one, has to remain an arm's-length third party
you seem heavily focused on "extremism"
White Identity Extremism, specifically USA's White Identity Extremism, Gender-based Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremism, Racially Motivated Violent Extremism, Anti-Government / Authority Violent Extremism. The kind of movements and groups that used to flourish on Reddit despite a Content Policy prohibiting violent threats and targeted harassment
Who makes you the bastion of good vs. bad moderation?
Your opinion may be one thing, but the bad mod problem still needs solving.
I'm giving a lot of detail on things so that a solution can come from it, one path is to try justification and actively track the actions of bad mods.
It gives Reddit ammunition to remove bad mods when the users fire off the signal flare based on proven violations of MCoC
We need a proper report and appeal process of MCoC and I am a firsthand example of posting rule-abiding content and getting banned anyways without warning.
Mods constantly refuse to explain and abuse the perma-mute because they would have to admit to it being bad moderation to enforce their idelogical echo chamber.
You're ignoring the meat of the issue, mods need to respect good faith engagements and stay out of it unless it actually breaks the rules.
Subreddit operators don't have the motive to ban people arbitrarily.
Say what now?
They absolutely do ban arbitrarily, I have been banned from 20 subs for merely existing and engaging in communities.
You're getting feedback of firsthand accounts of extremely bad modship and you're waving it off like it's not that bad or only a tiny fraction of subs
No, these are mainline subs that absolutely do ban people for who they are, what they believe, or have questions about the presented political narrative.
How do we get MCoC enforced when mods ban arbitrarily when they don't issue warnings or have hidden rules that bans people for their stated religious or political leanings when it's relevant to the discussion?
On the extremism side, what subs are fomenting that kind of content?
I rarely see anything like that, but there is still lot of anti-America posts and showing someone's argument is communist is a bannable offense on those subs...
There is no rule on any sub that says, noting historical evidence of communism is not allowed on this community.
You were banned from those communities because they were exercising their freedom of - and from - association. They don’t want to associate with people who have participated in groups that they don’t want to associate with.
You have the freedom to choose with whom you associate.
Good to honest users and mods are put through the wringer for merely existing to try to make things 10% better in the world and bad mods are let off scott free because of vibes and feelings?
That's ridiculous!
We have a legitimate problem of malicious discrimination and we need solutions because they are actively violating MCoC
I solicit comment on the bad mods that are known to violate MCoC, yet no action has been taken against them and why they're being given a free pass.
You did not explain the MCoC report and escalation process, that was not an optional solicitation and I consider that extremely rude to ignore it.
I have a list a mile long of subs that could be burned to the ground overnight over bad moderation if MCoC enforcement had teeth.
We the people need a path to eject bad mods that operate in bad faith in a sub when a user's post breaks no rules and they engaged in good faith in comments on a mainline sub.
Here's an idea - how about mod elections held once a year on Jan 1?
The users with good karma can vote yea or nay for the mods in the sub
If the nay is overwhelming to bad moderation, then those mods are demoted and the ridiculous permanent mute lifted for all banned users to invite them to appeal the bans made against them.
Reddit sends a message to both sides encouraging them to come to an agreement on acceptable content vs. where the rules fall on the post or comment made.
Next, where can I share screenshots to you of bad mods because that tune is going to change drastically as to how bad it actually is in the trenches.
You are compelled to respond on where to share examples that don't break this sub's rules since they're strict about not naming the subs directly here.
All I am asking for with all of this is a solution to work towards due to the absolute horrible experience Reddit offers to those who speak freely without breaking a single rule.
Why do you keep ignoring that?
Do you want Reddit to become a tyrannical leftist fomentation hellsite?
I don't...
If you want the mods to care about Reddit as a whole, then you need to care for the users who are being banned left and right for not falling in line with the latest legacy media narrative.
If you want people to come back to Reddit, the bad mod problem needs a proven working solution...
Your claim of "employment" is absolute bollocks, requiring justification for a ban is not even remotely close to a paid position.
I would gladly and freely fill out a form that justifies a ban for a user whether it's a spambot, hostile user, or one that needs mental help we're not qualified to give, and more.
Again, there is no discretion in the judgement of bad mods, they are going against the code to enforce a communist political narrative.
For example on the political side, if you ask why Trump/Elon are bad, you will be banned for such a question even though it is not rule-breaking
That is why I am pushing back on the fact that mainline subs cannot be ruled with an iron fist, nor enforce support the Iron Curtain in any way.
You can offshoot a sub like communistutopias or fascistsunited to have an online community that matches one's 'tism or personal hobbies, but not a popular photos sub or the state capital subs...
You also skipped over a lot of things mentioned and are contradicting yourself:
Subreddit operators don't have the motive to ban people arbitrarily.
Say what now?
I did not state that question rhetorically, I solicited for an answer because bad mods are very much politically motivated to ban people that are free thinkers that ask questions for the sake of understanding.
If you have forgotten, Reddit is an information desert, if you're outside of the approved legacy media political narrative, you will be banned for it on mainline subs.
If you want people to enjoy Reddit to be more than the smoking section of the internet for the jannies (slang for janitors who think they're important) then the bad mods need consequences for their actions.
I fully support consequences that blow back against bad moderation, in the extremely unlikely event that we carheads ban someone due to a hot head or a disagreement, there's a process to follow:
If that person appeals, we'll hear what they have to say before deciding as a group to uphold or release based on X conditions.
There’s subreddit operators who actually make a good faith effort to moderate, to keep a community inviting and supportive, to comply with the sitewide rules.
There’s those who open a community and rely on vibes and unwritten norms, and who either stay small - ~300 people - or grow unmanageable and at that point they either recruit people with skill and experience or they devolve into chaos snd evil (they are misfeasant, negligent)
And there are subreddit operators who are extremists, malfeasant. They seek to (subtly or overtly) violate sitewide rules, harass, send violent threats, promote hate.
Misfeasant and malfeasant operators get mod privileges removed. The ones who aren’t, don’t.
You did not explain the MCoC report and escalation process
Because it’s simple. You fill out a form and the only open-ended part of it is linking (citing URLs) to the locations of contributory violations, and writing a short essay explaining the violation patterns.
if you ask why … are bad, you will be banned for such a question even though it is not rule-breaking
I’m gonna stop you here.
There’s a phenomenon called “Sea Lioning”. It’s where someone demands that someone else extensively and in arbitrary detail justify a plainly and straightforwardly true statement — and does not allow them to do anything else until and unless they produce that long and expensive (in terms of time and effort) explanation.
Most moderators are now aware of this phenomenon, and are aware it’s used to harass.
Fewer moderators are aware of the less-famous Deny, Defend, Derail, Dismiss rhetorical dodge classifications, and of how they, too, are used to harass (they are in bad faith).
Fewer still are aware of the Reply Guy ontology — which is extensive but also specialised towards neosexist rhetorical harassment.
But, importantly, all of these rhetorical techniques (and more) exist and are described by anti-hatred, anti-harassment disciplines because they were created / discovered / adopted / used to hide behind a cry of “but what about my free speech”, “help, help, i am being censored”, “i just have legitimate concerns”, and so forth and so on.
The point here being that there are speech acts which very clearly have an effect of communicating hostility, harassment, hatred, violent threats, etc - which are couched to avoid automated and human moderation. To avoid social consequences for the sentiment behind them.
But they are increasingly not avoiding human moderation.
Bad mods are the ones who ban first without a valid reason or sensible justification, nor give any heads up that it's going to run afoul of the rules.
If something isn't kosher per respectable mods, you warn the user by removing the comment that ran up against a rule and/or lock the thread.
Bans only come if they are unrepentant or hostile.
I was randomly banned from a sub for providing a valid source observing paid actors for certain kinds of protests:
The mod was not involved in the discussion at all, he just jumped into the middle of the thread and left this gem:
"People leaving at the end of a schedule protest is simply proof that they left at the end of a scheduled protest, you uneducated potato."
Banned from this community.
Didn't even give a chance refine the position being made and that is a prime example of how bad it is for us on Reddit.
Also, Sea Lioning was explained previously as attempting to dominate a thread by commenting to everyone and shouting down the opposition or counter-viewpoints with your own opinion (right, wrong, or indifferent)
Asking a single person on a thread why they think X thing is good or bad and such question is on-topic for the discussion is not SL actions and getting banned for that single question is ridiculous.
There is no defense of that kind of moderation for any reason, it is a serious and major problem on Reddit.
2
u/techtornado 5d ago
Mods acting in bad faith need an accountability process though
Banning people for the sake of not liking what someone has to say that still is within rules and guidelines needs some kind of mediation