Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Aren't all Reddit subs driven by their own moderators? Or are there core subs that are Reddit-moderated?

I had a lawyer friend who liked to post in a legal advice sub, moderated by someone in law enforcement, who banned him for posting information about your rights if you're arrested.



The lion share of subs are moderated by a relative few mods. There was a post showing the graph of control recently, I found it disturbing. Unfortunately Reddit has critical mass now, I think it can survive what ever it becomes. It could lose every user who wishes it was like the first 5 years and hardly notuce. There won't be a Digg moment for Reddit.


Many dominate players on the internet have been kicked to the curve. It starts with complacency which lack of real competition seems to always create.


Does Reddit have a system to appeal mod decisionmaking for important (and not so important) subreddits?

I think Flickr had this back when they were a big property. You'd have site admins look at your complaint and follow up as necessary.

It's be nice to have and if they have it that it'd be more active to keep things from going off the rails --within reason.


The blatant censorship situation in r/india 'official India subreddit' is similar.

Any user supporting the incumbent government or speaking against Islamic terrorism gets banned.

Similar scenario on r/worldnews. Anti-Muslim posts get removed and users banned, while Anti-Hindu posts get to the front-page.

Reddit should make atleast the 'Official Country' subreddits from obvious bias/influence.


I suspect that Reddit intentionally keeps the moderators of core subs a group of "normal users" (who will follow any requests by the admins) as a level of obfuscation for any corporate-driven censorship or vote-tampering.


I would agree with that, especially for their biggest and most influential subs like /r/news and /r/politics. Reddit's owners have shown they're not above selling out some of these subs to firms like ShareBlue. It would make sense as part of their contract, they'd ensure that the mods were 'suited' to their customers' goals.


Shareblue was banned from r/politics and a bunch of other popular subs long ago.


Linking to the domain was banned. I doubt reddit has the technical capabilities to effectively prevent them from continuing their alleged bot/vote-manipulation activities.


And I suspect there's a secret cabal of mole-men (and -women) who are selecting presidential candidates for the Democratic primaries.

Are either of these claims falsifiable?


Yes, their claim can be easily falsified by a full investigation.


What is the answer if the result of said investigation is "well, we have no direct evidence"?


That has no bearing on if the claim is falsifiable or not.


> falsified by a full investigation

Unless it's a term I'm not aware of, a full investigation is still limited to human actors and limits.


The result of the investigation isn't a factor in determining if a claim is falsifiable or not, only the question if the investigation is possible. This is confusing falsifiable with falsified.


A full investigation by whom? They've broken no laws. Voluntary? Ha.

I realize what the parent was attempting to say, but internet rumormongering is poor form.


>A full investigation by whom?

The scientist seeking to determine if it is falsifiable. That no scientist has the resources necessary to do so now does not have bearing on determining if some claim is falsifiable or not.


I consider claims in which there is no realistic path to falsifiability non-falsifiable.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: