![]() While likely true in the literal sense (again, hundreds), such answers of course completely evade the question. When questioned, they invariably say that they "just watch the incoming queue" or something, and the other mods "do all the work". It is certainly not in the moderation work, which many do to satisfy their need for power over othersĬontext for others: There are powermods who "moderate" hundreds of subreddits. Reddit moderators are even more deluded about where the site's value is than they portray its owners to be. Users can not be trusted with the decision to participate in communities they built because doing so would be an attack on blind people? That dog won't hunt. And it doesn't even present a coherent argument to what I wrote anyway, it's just an appeal to emotion. People who "have accessibility needs" can interact with computers and web pages. They'll be required to pay extra for access Except the blind of course, or anyone else with accessibility needs. Going by the rules and what has always been done, reddit's owners can remove moderators and set API pricing how they like. You can't on one hand protest that people should "do the right thing" and on the other hand do the "well akshually the rules." thing. > People unhappy with moderator choices can do what they always did, make the community that matches what they want. How does this dubious and unsourced claim address anything I wrote even if it were true? > The power-users and power-mods tend to overlap, so that's about the same group. But if people like it and want to use it and continue to participate in their communities they are a part of there, they should be permitted to. I say this as someone who dislikes the reddit organization, the CEO, their lies and underhandedness, has been proudly perma banned from there, and would get some petty satisfaction from reading about them crashing and burning. I wouldn't be too upset to see a few get their comeuppance for it. But using moderator powers to make these statements is an abuse of power and abuse of the user base, and it's exactly what I would expect from the archetype reddit moderator. Make organic posts to the site to raise awareness of any particular issue or cause you like, and let those get viewed and voted as they will. Closing subs to protest takes that choice out of the hands of the user. And to that end the freest, fairest, and most democratic choice is the individual's private decision to participate. The value is in the users, the people who create content. ![]() ![]() It is certainly not in the moderation work, which many do to satisfy their need for power over others, and for each moderator there are 100 sycophants and narcissists lined up to take their place. They could even sticky a link to a third party app at the top of the subreddit, one that doesn't bow down to the API nonsense but rather functions through adversarial interoperability. This would have the bonus effect of nudging users into using third party apps for accessibility's sake. ![]() The subreddit is nominally available, the users are involved and showing support of the protest, a clear symbol has been chosen that shows the issue is not going to go away, and the subreddit is not operating with business as usual.Īn alternative approach for something like /r/firefox might be choosing a style sheet that was uncomfortable to read, maybe black text on black background, bright green text on pink background, or something like that. The "malicious" compliance of /r/pics seems like the way to go. Just as with most physical protests worth a damn, where it's just a matter of time until the police show up and break it up. Trying to confront the Royal Court's ultimatum head on with some kind of written response seems like a losing proposition, because Reddit Inc ultimately controls the servers. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |