Hacker News Reader

Comment by Silhouette | Hacker News Reader

I expect they are going to exempt a lot more than that. I have lost count of how many of the useful subreddits I belong to have already committed to going dark next week but it's a lot of them. This was a terrible judgement on Reddit's part and some kind of mea culpa from a higher-up followed by a rapid climb down looks inevitable if they don't want to be the next Twitter.

View on HN

Most subs are going dark for 2 days, which is an inconvenience that will be soon forgotten.

The subs that try to stay dark permanently will have their mods replaced.

That kind of assumes there's an endless stream of quality moderators willing to work for free, just waiting for their turn.

> "quality moderators"

Reddit admins will just install the generic supermoderators that already "moderate" 300 default subs and call it a day. IPO line goes up, baby!

No, it correctly assumes there's an endless stream of people wanting to be moderators so they can wield the power that comes with that.

Whether that be by being a quality mod or by abusing it to silence people they disagree with is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. "Moderator" who uses their privileges only for abuse is not actually fulfilling the role of a moderator. Quality goes down the drain as a result.

any sub can remain private, and only allow posts from a select few, these subs could simply boot everybody and only let a small core team in and post regular updates so the sub is active, then Reddit can't just give it to someone else, not without an even bigger exodus. plus you can't just get a new mod team, especially for subs like askhistorians. They're very thorough, use many tools themselves that use the API to handle moderation and aggregate posts etc...

I mean, at this point they might as well call up Elon musk and ask advice on running a social network.

You're right they could keep the sub alive, but if they don't want to moderate anymore and their blackout failed to get the change they wanted, why would they bother?

They don't need to call Elon, there are plenty of far-right radical incubator subreddits they could ask for assistance that would give them the same advice.

Why doesn't Reddit just disable the ability to "go dark"?

The feature that mods are using is setting the subreddits to "private" (with no approved members). Disabling the ability to do this will break that function for people who use it, or look really petty.

Reddit could just disable this function on a specific moment, so that the feature cannot be used for coordinated strikes

Escalating open war against its users is not a very good idea for Reddit. Keep gaming that option out, and all the other responses and counterresponses.

Broadly, Reddit needs money to survive, and they need goodwill to get money. Burning $X of goodwill to make $10X dollars is kind of what they're trying to do now, but it's a very delicate move on their part. If you kind of build some simple mathematical models in your head it's not hard to see how delicate this move is, since "goodwill" is also people visiting. As large as the site is, it is not very many exponential processes from 90%+ losses. It is one of great perils of social sites in general, they can't help but transmit social contagions by their very design. There's quite a number of sites that have been wiped out by these forces (MySpace), and a larger number of sites that nominally still exist but are shadows of their former selves (Slashdot, Tumblr post-porn removal, Digg).

I suspect Reddit management is making a classic mistake and operating with a linear model of their options when in fact the situation is very non-linear because of the fact that goodwill feeds back on goodwill. It's only locally linear and they can leave the linear domain quickly and irreversibly.

To what end? The only thing it accomplishes is making them look petty.

Well the moderators could just strike in protest? Which would probably cause more issues

because they depend on free labors of people that are going dark for their business to function

I think Reddit will actually still run for quite a while without moderators as most egregious spam is caught by auto moderator rules (although set up by moderators).

I moderate a few subs and rarely do things manually.

So short term strikes won’t have much impact other than degraded quality.

Also, there’s already a process for “abandoned” subs where if subs aren’t moderated users can request mod access. So if mods go on strike, new users could request mod access.

For some of the larger subs I think this would actually be healthy as there are lots of subs with toxic mods but there is no way to oust them unless they choose to leave.

And then lose the moderators that make each sub Reddit work, they could do that, but then it would just turn into Voat eventually.

It would look even worse on their part, and there will probably still be a lot of people boycotting Reddit by their own volition regardless of how the site operates.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com