Great writing on the current Reddit saga. The author put down in words a lot of things in my mind I couldn’t find the right words.
You must log in or # to comment.
I must say, I was always a stranger on Reddit and everyone was a stranger to me. I was there for the interesting links and discussions, but never for the people or the community.
Being a jerk wasn’t the norm, so it wasn’t as bad as portrayed in the article, but it certainly wasn’t a village at any point. Sure, I visited many small subs all the time, so those places could have been villages, but I was always a traveler, constantly on the move. If I noticed a particular username, I was nearly guaranteed never to see that name again, so I never really paid much attention to the thousands of names I would inevitably forget.
Defederation I believe is a really powerful tool. More so than it seems. It creates islands of a sort and you can be more or less assured that your interests are respected. If they’re not you move to an instance that federates with likeminded individuals. Makes it so much easier to isolate bad actors since they tend to group together. And then you disconnect from them and suddenly a whole avalanche of problems simply goes away. Moderation is obviously necessary but it is much more of a community effort. Keep in mind that most admins and mods are here because they want to use the forum just like you do. Your interests align much more than if a vc backed company Hosts your community with the singular goal of extracting as much value out of you as they can in whatever way available.
I really think both sides of the coin have something to offer. One thing I like about larger communities is just the shear amount of content and discussion you can see, especially if you have a lot of time to kill. That being said I am VERY much enjoying interacting in a smaller community - haven’t done that in like a decade.
I think more content is a double edged sword though. I find I used Reddit to second guess myself a ton, like which thing to buy, whether I should like something, etc.
In a smaller community, I’m left to think more for myself since I can’t just offload that to the group.
Sometimes that data is really useful, but I think I’ve gotten too dependent. So a SM diet was absolutely in order. And as you said, I’m very much enjoying it. We’ll see what happens in the next few weeks as the Reddit situation resolves one way or another.
Yeah, I keep saying this to people when they worry about fragmentation. Like it’s important to have all the Baseball fans in the same Baseball forum under one big banner.
No, that’s not better, that’s worse. What you want is a thousand interconnected forums with 100 people each, not a forum with 100,000 people.
How is community engagement better in a interconnected forum compared to a single forum consisting of all the participants? I’m asking out of ignorance
How would cross community discussions take place?
@honeyed_coffee For the reasons the OP mentioned. Familiar faces, being recognized in a community instead of being just today’s main character.
In a single large forum most participants are silent, as they must be or it’d be a cacophony. Many are silent out of worry that they need to say something good enough to impress a hundred thousand people, not just something interesting to their local 100 friends.
On Fediverse things escape their local instances and their local forum-groups by boosts mostly.
As karma mattered more you lost a whole subset of regular posters that felt kamra took a relaxing pastime and made it into a job. Karma was used as a kind of stopgap for the issue of managing the cacophony in a busy thread, which made the points matter even more and caused even more people to disengage.
Personally, I found that karma led to self-censorship of any idea that remotely deviated from the group consensus.
Can you think of alternatives to voting, though? Sorting always requires some curating system that isn’t random but I can’t think of any that would be robust to group consensus
I don’t think user voting in of itself is a problem. It’s the consequences of large negative voting that causes the real problems. In Reddit, a single unpopular comment on a popular subreddit could send a casual Redditor into negative karma which effectively shadowbans them from Reddit. As a result, you see people deleting their comments to stop the bleeding. Controversial opinions are punished severely.
One underrated thing that keeps the village going is the police. Or, in our case, the mods.
I know, I know! Everyone hates the mods - with their over-inflated egos and unaccountable practices and their capricious banning of innocuous subjects.
But life without the mods means a village where rioters run rampant.
Absolutely, but if the values are spread across the whole community, the village can self-govern itself and enforce the rules without force. If the majority of the villagers don’t tolerate something makes the job of a police much easier.
I think that’s a lovely idea - which doesn’t work in reality. At some point someone will need to be cast out. That can’t be done by peer pressure, because scammers, spammers, and griefers don’t care about that.
Individual blocks also don’t work because they leave unaware users open to being abused.
Sure, you could have a town council vote on a block, or have software which blocks a user for all if they have been blocked >=N times, but that’s still moderation.
This is why I think downvoting submissions/comments is needed. I like how Hacker News forum does it. You need to have a certain number of upvotes on your contributions to even be able to downvote, and if the comment or a reply receives a lot of downvotes it gets greyed out or collapsed.
But again, ability to downvote is not enough, users needs to be aligned on what they want their community to look like. In case of HN, a very devoted and unique community, theres no patience for low effort, agresive and funny without a cause submissions. Their Guidelines itself is a really wonderful read.
As a counter-argument, I never liked this. Because everyone who disagrees gets silenced and even made invisible.
During covid, it was pretty much impossible to disagree that we all must be vaccinated and isolated, or suggesting that natural immunity is much better than vaccinating for younger people. Only afterwards has it become accepted as the truth. During covid, you would be called a conspiracy theorist for talking about natural immunity instead of vaccines.
Even if you don’t agree with this specific point, I wanted to bring it up and show how it creates a complete echo chamber and makes sure everyone seems to agree, because people who don’t are silenced.
This means most people will not see that there is another way of seeing things, and they will believe that only one solution is possible.
Same thing with war scenarios. If you don’t agree there should be a war, you are called unpatriotic. So many ways people get silenced. I think we should avoid that.
Natural immunity to covid has never been accepted as better. You’re still a conspiracy theorist with very dangerous things to say
Just sneak it in with some exaggerated examples no one supported and hope nobody calls you on it…
This link and the type of discussion it’s already generated gives me so much hope for the future of Beehaw. This place is something special and I hope it is able to continue being a village. Thanks for the share.
What’s beehaw? I’m on fedia. 😉
