you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]fschmidt 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

This is why /s/FreedIt is needed, a place where mods can moderate as they see fit.

[–]Node[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's my impression they can moderate pretty freely when not on s/all. Otherwise there's an expectation of free participation and opinionating when within the saidit community.

[–]Node[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

To control quality within subs, I would simply let mods moderate however they want. If you don't like how a sub is moderated, don't go there and possibly mute the sub.

Imo, a rogue sub included in the main or default view would taint the entire site. The way I've used sites like this forever, is viewing all posts, or all comments, regardless of the sub they're technically posted in. If moderation policies aren't consistent within my view of the site, then the effect is no different than arbitrary or random rules.

I started this internet phase on reddit in 2005, where there were no separate subs for several years or so. What's the breakdown of how people use sites like this? Do they actually 'go into' specific subs? Is the 'all' view more common? Is one of those a more desirable demographic?

Maybe an s/some or s/other could be a view of subs that don't conform to the default rules, and they wouldn't be hidden.

[–]fschmidt 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Consistent moderation policies are incompatible with free speech. I discussed the rogue sub problem here.

[–]Node[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

offensive content

Troll posts posts with no conversational value? The 'skeeter' and 'human_corpse' accounts post offensive content, but they would have to be banned from all other subs to contain them to one in particular. In which case, they have a new unbanned account in 5 minutes.

Attempting to limit their posts to one particular sub seems unworkable. Accounts would need to be difficult to make, and policed on a site-wide basis. And so, we're back to site-wide rules seeming to be the only viable solution.

the majority of the content that the average user sees by default shouldn't be offensive to him

Truly free speech in 2021 means the trolls dominate your site, and a large percentage of the content the average user sees will likely be offensive to her, or him. If you remember the early days of /b/, the vast majority of users will find some or much content they dislike.

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Active mods would remove troll posts from their sub. SaidIt doesn't encourage active mods, so this doesn't work here.

My MOST proposal allows trolls to post in their own subs, but most users would never see these posts because they wouldn't be in MOST. So this is free speech that still protects average users.

[–]Node[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If subs are essentially their own fiefdoms with no conformity to a standard of behavior, what would be their justification for being a section of the site? The distinction seems closer to separate sites with different user bases than a hodgepodge of incompatible practices and standards under one umbrella.

Here's an example of a former sub that banned moids (no boys allowed), and went off to create their own site due to incompatibility with the saidit userbase. They were not on s/all, but even then the proximity to what they call moids made them question why they were here in the first place.

I'm not seeing the advantage of encountering random rules when clicking on s/all or s/all/comments. A reply will be fine one time, and another time it will get you banned. Why would users like that?