Mods should be forced to indicate what rule was broken when banning. All bans should be appealable on reddit and addressed by a human being. Mods who have a history of frequent ban overturns should be suspended or banned.
I think the concept of moderation by an individual needs more scrutiny. Why not build a software algorithm to allow for subscribers to vote on moderation actions?
In other words, instead of vertical top heavy moderation, privide a more level, more horizontal process, where our peers play a significant role, or even act as co-moderators.
We are recreating in software all the top down vertical hierarchies we tend to be sceptical of in the real world. Why?
Imagine if there were no jury trial? How much worse would things be?
So why do we build an online world with a lower standard than we use to build the physical world. That’s just sloppy.
Mods should be forced to indicate what rule was broken when banning. All bans should be appealable on reddit and addressed by a human being. Mods who have a history of frequent ban overturns should be suspended or banned.
I think the concept of moderation by an individual needs more scrutiny. Why not build a software algorithm to allow for subscribers to vote on moderation actions?
In other words, instead of vertical top heavy moderation, privide a more level, more horizontal process, where our peers play a significant role, or even act as co-moderators.
We are recreating in software all the top down vertical hierarchies we tend to be sceptical of in the real world. Why?
Imagine if there were no jury trial? How much worse would things be?
So why do we build an online world with a lower standard than we use to build the physical world. That’s just sloppy.
I’d think then you’d hit the issue of a total echo chamber where anything even slightly challenging the mob gets deleted.
That’s not necessarily an issue. The mob is often right.
I’ll take the mob over the despot any day, unless I am the despot.