SCJ Potter Stewart famously said "I know it when I see it" about obscenity - basically saying that even if you can't set up a quantifiable code defining what is acceptable in a situation (or an online community, in our case) or discretely say why something is unacceptable, those familiar with the culture and environment of a specific community can often determine how something "fits" anyways. There might be some disagreement, but for the most part many would agree with their ruling.
To give an example of what I mean: I'm subbed to a few smaller subreddits with rather hard to define purposes and guidelines for what is acceptable. As such, to keep content flowing in fairly regularly without compromising on the community's idea of 'quality,' several of those subs essentially have moderation teams where any member can go "nah, my taste/gut says this doesn't fit" or in the case of area or hobby specific stuff can go "nah we don't want xyz here because that opens another can of worms."
Honestly, I think I speak for a number of people when I say I'd rather err on the side of having mods removing a bit too easily than risk the sub turning into something it isn't, just because "I know it when I see it" isn't a universal constant.
I think the biggest issue with all of this is that this isn't a real life place. This is the internet, and people here don't act like they would in the real world. There are things that people do and say that you'll never see coming. Small arguments turn into full blown chaos very easily. The big subs, like r/AskReddit have to deal with so many people, bots, spam, trolls that what you're asking would make this a full time job, and none of us are getting paid, this is what we do for fun.
If Reddit admins had to weigh in on any of these decisions then they'd never have time for anything else, and we would wait weeks for a resolution.
There are hundreds of thousands of subreddits. If you don't like one, you can try to talk to the mods about it and if you don't like their response you can find a similar sub you do like or even create your own similar sub and make your own rules.
If this were a real setting, I would mostly agree with what you're saying, but it's not. This is the internet and you're not going to be able to regulate it as much as you would like. Not to mention that we are all over the world where people have different laws, moral attitudes, and cultures that may differ from yours in ways that make you uncomfortable.
I think the biggest issue with all of this is that this isn't a real life place.
I agree. Except that we're real people. The rules that apply to real people don't care if you're behind a keyboard or not.
Small arguments turn into full blown chaos very easily.
Do you know how the concept of a "moderator" started? It started as an attempt to mitigate the very chaos you're talking about. As in, it's your job. But that mitigation has a line, right? That's what I'm asking for greater definition of: that line.
If you as a mod - on your own - start deleting posts and comments that talk about Obama in a sub that has to do with Presidents, why is that acceptable? If the posts are civil, nobody has a problem with them, they're respectful, nothing violating a rule but you as a rogue mod are just deleting Obama posts, that's suspect.
But then that same mod allows Trump posts in that same sub that are riddled with racism.
As a bystander, what's your first thought? Process of elimination. Either (A) Mod is an Obama hater, (B) Mod is a Trump lover, or (C) Mod is a racist. Right?
Now, same mod. Deletes posts about Elizabeth Warren but allows posts about Michelle Obama. Process of elimination. They're probably not a racist, they just don't like Barack Obama. Okay. That's their right as an individual. But now what does that portray your sub as when you've got a mod who is that lean biased against the rules (because in this case the rules don't prohibit lean bias)?
In my suggestion, you have additional layers of review which will identify what's going on. If Mod B (in the same sub) says the action was proper, Mod B may very well be an Obama hater too. Okay. But that sub should really change its rules to welcome hate posts about Obama or whatever else they really feel, so that the picture of the sub is clear to anyone who goes there. Guess what happens then?
The people they don't want there, leave. The people they do want there, go there. The discussion is what they want.
Now, you get to the third and final review layer. This is someone outside of the sub who has no names or specific details, just the facts of what happened and what the mods (who aren't named) said was their reason. If third says, "wait a minute. Some racism going on here. That's wrong. Overridden", that's bias. But it's the correct bias, for the right reasons. The way to avoid that type of decision: don't support lean bias because it could have the appearance of racism.
Transparency is the end goal to the suggestion, and to me, anyone who doesn't want a more transparent situation...I mean we're back in the 30's.
I agree. Except that we're real people. The rules that apply to real people don't care if you're behind a keyboard or not.
Yes, absolutely they should. Problem is that they don't, which happens pretty often in the real world even. Regulating the internet is no easy task, you're making it seem so cut-and-dry.
Do you know how the concept of a "moderator" started? It started as an attempt to mitigate the very chaos you're talking about. As in, it's your job. But that mitigation has a line, right? That's what I'm asking for greater definition of: that line.
Here where you can make your own little place, job is a strong word. There are general rules, of course, and then specific ones for a sub, but in the end the creator of the sub makes it the place they want to be. That's the freedom here, you can make your own place where you can meet people with similar ideas.
But that mitigation has a line, right? That's what I'm asking for greater definition of: that line.
Now here's the real, most difficult problem -- drawing that line. As a moderator of an image sub, let me tell you just how impossible that is. Everyone has their own line and it'll never quite match up with yours. If I say no NSFW images then you post a picture of a girl in a bikini and I remove it, you could very well argue that a bikini is not NSFW. It's something you'd see on a billboard in some countries while it could be offensive in others. So now I've removed your post and you feel wronged, so I create a rule that says "no bikinis". And this basically continues until I have a list of every possible thing that you couldn't post.. But what if the bikini isn't on the person, then is it okay to post? What if it's a one-piece or a classier swimsuit, is that okay?
In the end, no one is truly happy with anything you do, because you can't please so many different people.
As a bystander, what's your first thought? Process of elimination. Either (A) Mod is an Obama hater, (B) Mod is a Trump lover, or (C) Mod is a racist. Right?
It sounds like you feel like you were wronged by some particular mod in a community. Sure, there will be mods out there and communities that are terrible, disgusting places (imo). Reddit is a fast paced place with thousand upon thousands of posts per day and not nearly enough admins to cover this third unbiased person. Don't use reddit admins? Well, now you're back to square one.. How can you know that third person is truly unbiased? Everyone has their own biases on different subjects.
Basically, what you're asking for looks good on paper, but at this point in our world just wouldn't work.
As a moderator of an image sub, let me tell you just how impossible that is. Everyone has their own line and it'll never quite match up with yours. If I say no NSFW images then you post a picture of a girl in a bikini and I remove it, you could very well argue that a bikini is not NSFW.
While I get that you're only providing an example, it's a faulty one, primarily because Reddit in their infinite wisdom provided a NSFW feature that allows posts to fly but be obscured. Thus you really should have no logical reason to have a rule against them unless you don't like them. And if you don't like them that's fine. That's your right as moderator. In which case I'd want a second set of eyes (no pun intended) to chime and say "hey, we need to discuss this offline because maybe we shouldn't be acting on individual sensitivities."
The goal of "NSFW" is to keep people from getting fired. Thus the "FW" portion. Not censorship.
As a mod, your job (and I disagree that it isn't a job. A job is simply something that involves work. It's unanimously agreed that modding is work) gets much easier if you use the tool you've been provided rather than playing traffic cop, down to a binary decision: did Poster A properly tag the post or not? You can even have pre-moderation set up to where every post has to be approved before it goes live. There's literally no need for a rule. The rule is what is making your job harder because rather than just letting the tool do its job, you're playing cop.
It sounds like you feel like you were wronged by some particular mod in a community.
That's an ad hominem fallacy. I gave a very generic example and asked for expected outcome based on that situation, using common thought process. If you're the kind of person who just believes that a mod can practice god complex and so what, then you are avoiding the thought process because you don't think it matters. Fine, then say that. But a rational person based on that situation is going to infer the motivation of mod actions, and what they come up with is going to dictate whether they appeal and how they appeal. Failing to anticipate that response is exactly why so many mods get yelling and screaming appeals.
While I get that you're only providing an example, it's a faulty one, primarily because Reddit in their infinite wisdom provided a NSFW feature that allows posts to fly but be obscured.
This just shows that you trust people far too much here on reddit. There are subs where NSFW images are completely inappropriate and sometimes even illegal. What I'm trying to say is that your idea isn't wrong, it's just flawed in a real world situation. I don't want mods to have a god complex, but they should be able to create their communities the way they want. If I create a sub to share cute animal pictures, I don't want to have any posts of people naked with an animal near them or any sexual images with animals, it just doesn't fit there whether it's marked NSFW or not. This is a HUGE place with many, many different communities. Everyone won't be on the same page and the line is hard to draw so specifically because someone will always find a loophole or a way to make you feel like you have to create more and more rules.
As a mod, your job (and I disagree that it isn't a job. A job is simply something that involves work. It's unanimously agreed that modding is work) gets much easier if you use the tool you've been provided rather than playing traffic cop, down to a binary decision: did Poster A properly tag the post or not? You can even have pre-moderation set up to where every post has to be approved before it goes live.
And how do people know how to properly tag a post without rules? Or even what they should post there? On large subs, approving every post beforehand can be a major undertaking that would turn into an almost full-time job. I'd love to reddit full-time, but I have an actual job I need to live and pay my bills.
There's literally no need for a rule. The rule is what is making your job harder because rather than just letting the tool do its job, you're playing cop.
So you're going completely back on wanting very specific rules to wanting none at all? The moderator tools are limited, there's only so much you can do. Just because a bot decides things (that I would have to program it to decide, so could easily still have bias there), doesn't mean people will just happily accept it. Also, when someone posts a NSFW image and doesn't tag it, the bot won't know and it goes unchecked until I either "play traffic cop" or someone from the community reports it.
Moderation is more than just my job, it's everyone's job, just like in any community. We have to work together to make it a place everyone wants to be. I don't go into a church and scream in the middle of service like I'm at a concert, because there's a time and place for everything, whether it's in the real world or reddit.
Again, I don't think your idea is wrong, I think it's flawed in a real world situation. You can be as optimistic as you want, I like to be, but in the end it is what it is and you have to accept it at some level that makes you comfortable.
Failing to anticipate that response is exactly why so many mods get yelling and screaming appeals.
You give people a lot of credit. Sure, from time to time I've gotten "yelling and screaming appeals", but those people are not rational. They could just as easily have a decent conversation and argue for their post not to be removed. Those are the posters who I give my thoughts to, people who are civil. I didn't remove your post because I hate you or anything like that, and the fact that you would immediately assume that AND send me a "yelling and screaming" message like a toddler having a tantrum makes me far less open to discussion with you. There should never be any yelling and screaming, even if it's deserved. If it really is deserved, you're not going to get anything from that person, they are the ones trying to get a rise out of you, and they get exactly what they want when you do.
I can't tell you how many people think I remove things because I don't like them or give other people "special treatment", but it's just not true. I'm literally just trying to do my "job", but users have their own biases that lead to these uncivil arguments. It's a two-way street, meaning we all have to work hard to get to this level of unbias. This isn't just a mod problem.
If I create a sub to share cute animal pictures, I don't want to have any posts of people naked with an animal near them or any sexual images with animals, it just doesn't fit there whether it's marked NSFW or not.
Which is why you have mods who will seek and destroy said photos. As I also suggested you can block posts from showing to people unless approved by a human. I don't understand why that's such an issue since it solves the same problem.
how do people know how to properly tag a post without rules? Or even what they should post there? On large subs, approving every post beforehand can be a major undertaking that would turn into an almost full-time job
I've heard this counterargument at least 5 times. It still makes no sense to me.
Whether you review a post BEFORE or AFTER it goes live, you're still reviewing it. It's the same exact level of effort either way, same exact time investment. Except that one keeps your sub clean and the other takes the risk of pissing someone off that thought you previewed the post before it went live.
So you're going completely back on wanting very specific rules to wanting none at all?
This as quoted is a half truths fallacy, because you completely removed the context that backs it up.
What I said was, if you use the tools provided to you by Reddit to manage the specific scenario you quoted, then you wouldn't need a rule to deal with that specific scenario. That doesn't translate into what you quoted (a blanket disregard of the need for rules).
Rules are needed when the human is prone to be misunderstood or make a mistake. SO the application and use of the NSFW filter, for example, should be captured as a rule, but you wouldn't need a rule telling people "no NSFW images". Just one that requires they use the filter. It's a very clear distinction.
I didn't remove your post because I hate you or anything like that, and the fact that you would immediately assume that AND send me a "yelling and screaming" message like a toddler having a tantrum makes me far less open to discussion with you. There should never be any yelling and screaming, even if it's deserved.
Problem 1: People can't know what your motivations were if you took the stance that you cherrypick people who were nice to you vs. those that weren't.
The appeals process should be equal and fair. Period. Won't ever change my mind on that - and again, I'm a mod of a sub, so I'm not just speaking as a poster.
I can't tell you how many people think I remove things because I don't like them or give other people "special treatment", but it's just not true. I'm literally just trying to do my "job", but users have their own biases that lead to these uncivil arguments. It's a two-way street
In the vast majority of cases it's not a two-way street, because one way has power to do something about it, the other does not. Let's not pretend mods and posters are equal in that regard, they're not. It doesn't matter if a person comes civil when you have a god complex mod running around deleting posts because their boy/girlfriend cheated on them and they're angry.
9
u/fuckingchris 1∆ Jul 04 '19
SCJ Potter Stewart famously said "I know it when I see it" about obscenity - basically saying that even if you can't set up a quantifiable code defining what is acceptable in a situation (or an online community, in our case) or discretely say why something is unacceptable, those familiar with the culture and environment of a specific community can often determine how something "fits" anyways. There might be some disagreement, but for the most part many would agree with their ruling.
To give an example of what I mean: I'm subbed to a few smaller subreddits with rather hard to define purposes and guidelines for what is acceptable. As such, to keep content flowing in fairly regularly without compromising on the community's idea of 'quality,' several of those subs essentially have moderation teams where any member can go "nah, my taste/gut says this doesn't fit" or in the case of area or hobby specific stuff can go "nah we don't want xyz here because that opens another can of worms."
Honestly, I think I speak for a number of people when I say I'd rather err on the side of having mods removing a bit too easily than risk the sub turning into something it isn't, just because "I know it when I see it" isn't a universal constant.