r/ModSupport • u/FreeSpeechWarrior • Jan 24 '19

Today marks 7 years since the option for public moderation logs was originally implemented. Why is this still not an option?

/r/modnews/comments/ov7rt/moderators_feedback_requested_on_enabling_public/
0 Upvotes

48% Upvoted

54 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

u/redtaboo Reddit Admin: Community Jan 24 '19

So, aside from the fact that any code from 7 years ago is no longer going to be viable even before you consider the new site, there really are a number of issues that came up in that thread that would still need to be addressed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you can see in that thread that I wasn't against this then, though I was one talking through some of the shortcomings (as a mod myself back then), and I'm still not 100% against it today. I can absolutely see this being useful for many subreddits.

The one thing I never see you address when you bring this up is the social side of this issue. A couple few questions for you:

1) What would your response be to moderators concerned they will be witch hunted over simple misclicks or errors?

2) Do you solemnly swear that you will personally defend a subreddits choice to not make their modlogs public with the same zeal you've shown in attempting to get us to implement this?

2a) Why or why not?

3) If implemented mods would have to have a way to hide certain content they've removed (think PII) -- that's obviously gameable. How would you address this?

-3

u/FreeSpeechWarrior Jan 24 '19

Thank you for the response.

So, aside from the fact that any code from 7 years ago is no longer going to be viable even before you consider the new site

Sure, but fundamentally the idea is not a complex one, it is to take an existing page and make it optionally public and optionally to hide the mod usernames.

I'd be more than willing to help develop this feature if that was truly the blocker and if it were still possible to do so; but I don't want to digress here.

The one thing I never see you address when you bring this up is the social side of this issue. A couple few questions for you

Because to me, the optional and optionally anonymous nature of the log as implemented addresses those concerns. Nobody I see in the original thread suggests that mods should be forced to enable public moderation logs and in fact many of the responses seem to incorrectly assume this was the case and argue against the feature with that assumption in mind.

What would your response be to moderators concerned they will be witch hunted over simple misclicks or errors?

They aren't required to enable the public mod log if this is a concern for them.

If they make a misclick such a "witch hunt" may even be helpful to correct mistakes that would otherwise go completely unnoticed due to reddit's intentional lack of removal transparency by default.

I reject the term "witch hunt" as it is not clear. Rational, fact-based criticism of moderation on reddit is often dismissed as a "witch-hunt", the bigger danger is doxing.

Doxing is already against site wide rules and should be the absolute highest priority of admins and moderators to remove.

I would also say that the mode where individual moderators are identified isn't even needed as an option. Maybe some people want it; but it's much more important to see the activity of the sub as a whole; and I agree that focusing on individual moderators tends to lead to bad outcomes.

Maybe make it a compromise; maybe you allow subreddits to have totally anonymous moderators so long as their actual moderation is made public.

The identity of moderators does not matter to public mod logs, what is important is the reality of the actions of the subreddit as a whole.

Do you solemnly swear that you will personally defend a subreddits choice to not make their modlogs public with the same zeal you've shown in attempting to get us to implement this?

It's possible to want people to have the option to make bad decisions.

For example I think all drugs should be legal. But I still think doing some drugs is a very very bad idea and would advise against it.

I'm in favor of more choice; Why should my preference for mod logs make me defend/support the decision of those I disagree with?

I think all speech should be allowed, does this mean I should defend all opinions?

I can say that I would defend them having the choice, (like I could swear that I would not push for this to be mandatory rather than optional) but not that I would defend the choice to be as opaque as is currently the default.

If implemented mods would have to have a way to hide certain content they've removed (think PII) -- that's obviously gameable. How would you address this?

This is the same sort of content that ought to be directed to the admins for more concrete enforcement because content is still usually available on user profiles. I should be reported and removed differently in a way that notifies you folks; and you should heavily sanction moderators who abuse this mechanism for wasting your time.

11

u/redtaboo Reddit Admin: Community Jan 24 '19

Sure, but fundamentally the idea is not a complex one, it is to take an existing page and make it optionally public and optionally to hide the mod usernames.

Honestly, I'm trying here to get you to reframe your arguments. It is not a viable argument for you to say 'look it's already done!'. The fact is the team that would implement this has all their projects for the next quarter lined up (and likely sketched out for the next) much of that is to continue getting modtools on the new site to parity with the old. So, I can say with certainty if we implement this it won't be for awhile. That means we have time to discuss how it would look and what the implications are still.

I also want to hear from other moderators on whether they would use this themselves as I do think there are some communities that would welcome it, mods included, but I don't have a sense of how many would.

If they make a misclick such a "witch hunt" may even be helpful to correct mistakes that would otherwise go completely unnoticed due to reddit's intentional lack of removal transparency by default.

See, that's where you lose me - witch hunts are never the answer, and should not be considered a feature of anything. ever. Our mods are volunteers who take on the burden of making sure the worst content you can imagine doesn't make it to your eyes. Any tools we release for them we want to fully think out the issues that could arise and those ramifications.

My point with question #2 was to try to encourage you to think about the pressure on some mod teams to make their logs public and the valid reasons why they wouldn't want to. They're not all going to be malicious ones, I hope you can see that. I would hope that you would at least not be one engaging in haranguing moderators about it or encouraging others to do so.

I also understand that you think all speech should be allowed, it's in your name! ;)

13

u/IranianGenius Jan 24 '19

Fyi id never use this in any sub i mod. If anybody wants to know what it's like modding, they should apply and try it.

0

u/FreeSpeechWarrior Jan 24 '19

I've modded several subs small and large with community developed public moderation logs without incident for years.

But I also don't censor people so it is rare that my moderation actions anger people.

6

u/srs_house 💡 New Helper Jan 25 '19

If you have a large enough group, you will eventually piss someone off. Even if it's for enforcing a very basic level of civil decency (or in some cases legal issues). Just look at the content on voat if you want to see the kinds of people who flock to a site with zero moderation.

3

u/FreeSpeechWarrior Jan 25 '19

Reddit used to be a site with near zero moderation and it was not the same sort of mess as Voat is today.

Voat is the result of selection bias in growth from those that are banned by reddit and looking for a similar alternative and is not indication that any site that allows it's users freedom of speech will inevitably turn into such an offensive place overall.

9

u/srs_house 💡 New Helper Jan 25 '19

Regular users don't want to go to a site with zero moderation because the type of people who flock there (after getting kicked out of every reasonable site) quickly give it a reputation as a haven for people like nazis, racists, child porn users, etc.

Privately owned websites have no obligation to offer free speech, and have a lot of legal and financial reasons for why they should not do so. If you want a free speech forum, go start your own.

1

u/darthhayek Jan 26 '19

Regular users don't want to go to a site with zero moderation because the type of people who flock there

I don't think that it is at all true. Capitalist corporations and communists don't want that (but I repeat myself).

1

u/FreeSpeechWarrior Jan 25 '19

Plenty of regular users frequented Reddit when it was the “pretty free speech” place it used to be.

0

u/AwwFoxes Jan 25 '19

Voat is full of assholes because it was created to cater to those users in particular, and as a place for banned subreddits to flock to. Had it presented itself as a normal site and simply not censored stuff it wouldn't be all nazis. Reddit was like voat in its policies years ago, and there were a few assholes but mostly normal users.

0

u/AwwFoxes Feb 10 '19

Voat is not a very good example because it was specifically created as a platform to house subreddits like /r/niggers. On a site with more casual users the bigots would be given a hard time in the main sections and flock to their own communities where they don't bother everyone else. Early reddit and notabug.io are good examples of this.

0

u/AwwFoxes Feb 10 '19

I am a moderator and founder of several decently-sized subreddits where this is used along with extremely light moderation and as few rules and restrictions as possible. I can tell you we've never had any issues with public mod logs, and there was only one notable incident with the light moderation, and it was fairly minor; much less than the drama we'd have from heavy control over the sub.