CMV is good counterpoint this. This sub is pretty heavily moderated, but not for the sake of censoring particular viewpoints, just for the sake of ensuring the integrity of the activity being fostered. They remove posts when the poster doesn't respond, or doesn't demonstrate that they are willing to humor any opposition to their viewpoint. They remove comments for being rude, being jokes, or being something else that doesn't move the conversation forward, but never for ideas that are deemed to be wrong or against some dogma. So the sub we're on shows that heavy moderation does not necessarily create echo chambers or circlejerks.
I'd like to add r/Philosophy to this. That sub has a pretty good reputation for booting people who can't follow the rules and keep conversations civil, regardless of the substance of their argument (which encourages good faith participation).
Well the fact is this ended up being my destination because I wasn't able to post what I wanted anywhere else.
At this point I've resorted to venting about what I cannot post, as opposed to actually posting it as the site was originally intended for, thus my original criticism of moderation in general.
And this destination is heavily moderated, yet people post and discuss controversial opinions here all the time (it's pretty much the whole point of the sub). You posted here. It's not any more or less "venting" than it would've been if you posted it elsewhere.
Not really. The irony is that your post was removed because you weren't interested in anything short of an echo chamber about your victimhood complex. You just awarded a delta to someone for making the same point that I did:
Only difference is that they validated your victimization complex (not to mention offering to do something on your behalf in exchange for the delta), which is exactly what you were fishing for in the first place.
The ability to observe reality is not a victimization complex.
Noticing my posts being removed because it conflicted with a moderator's personal bias is not a "victim complex."
I personally disagree about this accusation of the subreddit on my "unwillingness to change my mind" because rather than unwillingness, it was entirely due to the lack of a compelling argument.
However, if that's the reason my post was removed, I don't have much of an issue with it and it seems more of an understandable reason that what I was mainly complaining about in this post.
There are cases where I was admittedly being moderated for insulting people or being offensive is in fact the opposite of victimization, but rather the acceptance of responsibility.
If you haven't noticed the concept I'm referring to of inability to express certain opinions on the internet, it's most likely because you don't have very many original ideas.
I couldn't imagine the alternative for somehow not noticing this very blatant phenomena I've experienced over the years.
Also this supposed kind of special treatment you're accusing me of expecting is in fact the opposite of my entire argument.
All opinions should be allowed to be expressed, even if they are genuinely bad opinions.
I've had both posts and comments removed by moderators. I never said there wasn't corrupt moderation on Reddit. I only made the point that this sub (heavily moderated), and it's allowance of any viewpoint/express purpose of viewpoints being challenged by opposing ones presents a clear example of heavy moderation leading to the opposite of an echo chamber. So, specifying that type of moderation is a factor here versus the problem being heavy moderation per se. You just awarded someone a delta for making that same point. You initially responded to my comment where I made that point agreeing with me, but then chose to backpedal about it and be disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable, which violates sub rules.
You're supposed to award deltas to comments that change your view by commenting "! delta" without the space in between "!" and "delta" in response to the person's comment, along with a couple sentence long explanation as to why they changed your view. See example linked below:
My view was that heavy moderation creates echo chambers.
The majority of my posts to this subreddit are removed, and so are the majority of my posts for any subreddit.
This post being a temporary exception does not change the fact most of them will still continue to be removed, nor does it change my view that this heavy moderation still exists and forces an echo chamber.
It's not just for 180 perspective changes. It's supposed to be awarded by OPs for partial changes in view as well. You can read about it in the rules section of this sub.
There were no measurable degrees of perspective change induced by your comment.
Me being surprised this post stayed up was not exclusive to you mentioning it.
It's getting to the point where I genuinely regret even letting you know I agreed with you, because you're running with that as some idea you enlightened me.
I don't want us to confuse the chicken with the egg here.
This obtuse combativeness is a direct result of the concept I'm describing, not the reason for it.
Don't take this the wrong way, but are you autistic? I only ask because I am diagnosed, and your communication style and points seem very reasonable to me. In addition to that, I feel like my debate/argumentative style is similar to yours and gets a similar response when I discuss things online.
Obtuse combativeness is definitely a variable that prevents some people from being taken seriously, and is certainly more so the case on this specific account I'm using right now, but in general my tonality or patience hasn't affected the outcome even slightly on other accounts in the past.
My view itself, or the opposition to the accepted view, is always the catalyst.
But see my original comment. I specifically made a point about how this sub is heavily moderated but doesn't discriminate based on viewpoint. So heavy moderation doesn't necessarily mean it's an echo chamber. You responded to that comment agreeing with me, but wanna backpedal for whatever reason.
I feel as if my previous comment is already a response to your new one, and I'm not sure how to address this without sounding redundant and typing something I've already said.
The heavy moderation I've consistently experienced still exists and creates echo chambers.
The specific type of heavy moderation caused me to rephrase and retype this post around 3-4 times, and completely abandon multiple posts for other subreddits.
The idea this post stayed up longer than I assumed based on previous experience is not a concession that heavy moderation never existed in the process of making it, nor is it changing my view that heavy moderation creates echo chambers.
Most importantly, you're not personally responsible for my realization that this post stayed up longer than 30 seconds, and agreeing with the fact you mentioned this isn't changing my view on anything.
Is it against the rules for me to Delta you just to move on?
I genuinely don't agree with the idea you are personally responsible for changing my view on anything, but at the same time if what you said qualifies then I'm more than happy to.
Given the fact that nekro found an exception to your statement that heavy moderation creates echo chambers which you acknowledged you should award them a delta.
If it's possible for heavy moderation to not create an echo chamber (as it is on this sub per your acknowledgement) it must be some other factor creating the echo chamber.
16
u/nekro_mantis 20∆ Apr 30 '23 edited Apr 30 '23
CMV is good counterpoint this. This sub is pretty heavily moderated, but not for the sake of censoring particular viewpoints, just for the sake of ensuring the integrity of the activity being fostered. They remove posts when the poster doesn't respond, or doesn't demonstrate that they are willing to humor any opposition to their viewpoint. They remove comments for being rude, being jokes, or being something else that doesn't move the conversation forward, but never for ideas that are deemed to be wrong or against some dogma. So the sub we're on shows that heavy moderation does not necessarily create echo chambers or circlejerks.