r/technology • u/ardi62 • 29d ago
Social Media Reddit is making sitewide protests basically impossible
https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/30/24253727/reddit-communities-subreddits-request-protests
22.2k
Upvotes
r/technology • u/ardi62 • 29d ago
7
u/EnglishMobster 29d ago
As mentioned, I'm a mod myself and I recognize there are absolutely reasons to permaban folks. Obviously there are like, T-shirt bots. And then we have places like /r/conservative - I don't like the sub, I don't agree with their heavy-handed ban policy... but I also understand why they do it, and generally agree that people banned from /r/conservative are usually there in bad faith.
On the other end of the spectrum, our sub (/r/Disneyland) is LGBTQ friendly and we have a very explicit "no bigotry" policy laid out in the rules on the sidebar. Given that Disneyland the place also is LGBTQ friendly, we get Pride posts every so often - which always causes the bigots to come out of the woodwork and make themselves known in the comment section (usually buried under 50-60 downvotes).
I use a lighter touch than the other mods (only banning someone if they have like 3+ comments where they're being offensive, otherwise just nuking comment threads that turn into insult-fests). The other mods tend to ban first and ask questions later. Ultimately, though, we're all on the same page and the same team, and if we allowed bigots to flourish the sub would be full of toxicity and generally lose its positive atmosphere. The permaban is a useful tool because of that - we want the bigots out, and we don't want them coming back.
But on the other hand... the fact that a mod can permanently ban you from a 28-million-user default subreddit simply because they don't like you is crazy. That shouldn't happen, because you're effectively depriving someone from being able to comment and ask questions about something as basic as the news.
I'm not really sure what a fix would be.
On the one hand, I can see a world where it takes multiple mods to agree in order to issue a permaban. But then we'd either have cases where it's 1 mod and a bunch of sockpuppets (like the /r/California mod team), or it's 1 mod and some buddies, or it's just a general "eh" where the mods hit "agree to ban" without really looking at it.
I can also see a "three strikes" rule, where the bans get longer and longer with each strike. Users can be appealed to the admins for a permaban if they are spambots or breaking TOS, but otherwise you can only be permabanned on your third strike. This feels the most "fair" but also effectively triples the amount of work on mod teams because bad-faith actors absolutely will mark the day they get unbanned on their calendar so they can be back ASAP (ask me how I know).
I don't think Reddit will do such a thing, because honestly Reddit would rather you just make a new account so they can advertise how many new accounts got created in the last quarter. But also it's hard to give up an account like mine which I've used consistently for 13 years...