all 34 comments

[–]soundsituation 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (28 children)

I don't think mod demotion can in any way be construed as censorship. And I don't think that's what you meant but it's unclear from your post. As for removing duplicates I think it's okay if both of the following conditions are met:

  • The content is an exact duplicate - so if there are two posts about the same news item but each links to a different source, both posts should remain.
  • There is no engagement on the post - but to be safe, perhaps before removing the post the mod should tag the OP in a comment that redirects to the older duplicate?

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

the guy in the video obviously doesnt know anything about science! He did not even quote DOCTOR FAUCI!

[–]socks[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

I don't think mod demotion can in any way be construed as censorship.

Thanks - I appreciate your point - though I of course think an unethical removal of a mod is indeed a way of censoring that mod's contributions as a mod on a sub.

The content is an exact duplicate

Yes - that's what it was

There is no engagement on the post

Yes - that too

To be safe, perhaps before removing the mod should tag the OP in a comment that redirects to the older duplicate?

Yes - that would be nice. I have this option when removing posts at Reddit, but there is no option to comment on the reason for a removal at Saidit, perhaps because this site is using an earlier version of the code. That said, I had noted the explanations in the comment section of the duplicate post, but was censored nonetheless.

[–]d3rr 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

That said, I had noted the explanations in the comment section of the duplicate post, but was censored nonetheless.

You noted your removal reason not at all, or only after the fact:

[–]socks[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Yes - because I had hit the 'remove' instead of 'report' button, and then wasn't sure what to do, as I could not find an option to cancel the removal. (In any event, it was an exact duplicate with no comments, on the front page for 24 hours, under its duplicate.) Thanks for the note, however, which I would agree is a problem in general (where to put a comment on the reason for the removal).

[–]d3rr 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

The subs in question are very high profile, so sorry but I need to keep them 100% legit. m7 abandoned many subs as the sole mod, that didnt help things either.

[–]socks[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I need to keep them 100% legit.

That's why I've asked this question.

(I am not trying to annoy you, d3rr, but I argue that there was no mod abuse by me and that I was removed/censored for my removal of an old, inactive duplicate. Had another mod done this, they'd still be a mod for /s/politics. I know we don't agree on this, but I think it's an important question for mods in general, esppecially at a "free speech" website where were are so concerned about censorship. It's merely one of my various questions and debates at Saidit, not meant to annoy anyone.)

[–][deleted]  (11 children)


    [–]socks[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

    Yes - though the stated reason for my removal from 2 subs (from d3rr) was "that chipit post removal".

    I am trying to stay on the POD with this question, which is why I do not wish to mention names. But if you note that I antagonized anyone, we're onto a different topic, wherein I can easily argue that I constantly get angry low-POD responses from users like Chipit, to which I respond - not with oh, Chipit, I love you, you're awesome - but with a counter argument to Chipit's abuse, without abusing Chipit (in all cases I can think of, but perhaps not every case). Mods are also not prohited from arguing, or alternatively, thanking people for their abuses. But this is not what I've asked about in the present post. I was removed as mod from 2 subs because of a duplicate removal. In order to properly debate the censorship of mods who argue with users, I'd have to make another post. But I did not know that that was related to the censorship of my mod activities.

    Regarding apologies - should I apologize for removing a 24-hour exact duplicate (under its duplicate) on the front page of /s/politics? That's related to the OP question.

    [–]AmericanMuskrat 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

    I constantly get angry low-POD responses from users like Chipit

    I get that from Chippy too, and I already lost my temper over it once. I don't comment on his posts anymore. But he's a good contributor even if I'd rather go to a dental appointment than talk to him, I still upvote his stuff I like.

    I'm sorry you were removed as mod, I think you did a great job although I get what Axxa is saying, you do get in a lot of protracted fights with people and these are people you now have power over.

    On the subject of post removal, I don't think that was a big deal but I don't think that's what this is about either. Although there's really not enough volume to be caring much that 5% of the posts are dupes. Either way I mean.

    We do have different ideals of moderation. You seem to want a heavily curated space, and that's fine, but there's already so many of those out there. I favor a more hands off approach, let the people decide what they want to see and not have me tell them what they should see.

    One isn't necessarily better than the other. It's just we already have so much of the one and so little of the other.

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

    Thanks. I see your point. Two issues I've not already addressed in other comments:

    these are people you now have power over.

    The duplicate post is the first one I've removed (and did so by accident). In other cases I've helped the sub by reporting spam (not by removing it), and I've asked people to avoid being abusive (as I would ask in any other sub). Absolutely no one on Saidit was worried about my role as a moderator, and I am certain they did not see that role as having any power over them. This is very different at Reddit - where one knows that there are shill moderators who will look for and remove (without comment) certain comments or posts that are critical of Pakistan, India, Israel or China, in that order. Some of those posts survive the shill moderators, but there is a Pakistan moderator or two who are removing items and banning users without explanation. In any event - does anyone think I have power over them at Saidit? I would be really surprised if so, especially because I've not done anything to develop such a fear in any user. By contrast, I am the Libtard some users want to harrass, tag, question &c. They're not worried in the least. (Nor am I.)

    You seem to want a heavily curated space,

    No. Even /u/d3rr was annoyed when I told him that I didn't want to change Saidit - I wanted users to carryon as they are, so that I can learn from them. I also explained that I'd like to help with the spam (which was the main problem back then). Thus I was appointed as a spam deleting moderator. I think an old duplicate post with no comments on the front page is a form of spam, or at the very least, that the removal of a duplicate will give users an opportunity to see more of the legitimate posts (80% of which are Chipit's on some days, so I helped show more of his posts by removing a duplicate).

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)


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

      It's not antogonistic to reply to someone and disagree with them. That's certainly not the point of a debate. Did Chipit feel antagonized? I doubt it. He antagonized me and I responded. It's known as a debate. Regarding M7, he had many additional comments on what he wanted Saidit to be. If you've not seen those other comments, I can potentially find them for you, in his posts from long ago on Saidit and Reddit. Saidit - parts of it - did not become what he wanted it to be. And regarding "respectful, rational, conversations", that has happened. And given the amount of abuse I receive, especially from Chipit and others - without my prompting them to be abusive - I've had the patience of Job with these people, in order to develop conversations that will tell me more about their way of thinking. Thus I've learned a lot at Saidit, which as I've said many times before, was my reason for being here. Learning develops especially with debate and questions (per Socrates &c). I've had the thick skin that you note here.

      The question I've asked is related to moderation methodology, and you've not addressed that question. What you indicate in your comments is that you will interpret what is considered the "higher standard" for the moderator, and that you will interpret who is antagonistic, and that you want a 'wall' between the mod's actions and the user's actions. None of these are requirements for the moderator on any other sub. The tradition with moderators - as I've seen in the past 15 years at Reddit and as I've seen here at Saidit - is that they can and do argue with others in the subs, as you've done quite often. Do you see a double standard here?

      Did you follow a higher standard when you supported the ban of a moderator who had merely done hiw job? Did you see this as 'respectful' of the mod team and of a user? Did you unfairly see me as the the 'antagonistic' one in these conversations? Did you not appreciate that I do indeed have a thick skin on Saidit? (How many Democrats are here?) Did you - as a mod - consult the other mods when you made your decision? Have you deleted duplicate posts at /s/politics? Have you argued with anyone at /s/politics? None of my questions here about you specifically, but about the methods of a moderator. Per my original question, and per the points here, I've not done anything as a moderator that would qualify as a reason for banning me.

      [–]Chipit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      Sure, with answers like "Asshole"

      And "Bullshit"

      And "You have anger issues, Rob?"

      And many other insults and violations of Saidit TOS.

      Not to mention the hardcore hate of Jimmy Dore specifically, which is what precipitated the mod abuse. "Dore acts like he's concerned about the 'left' while DEFINITELY supporting the extreme right wing, because he's constantly attacking politicians on the left."

      Get that, folks? Attacking a politician from the left means you're a nazi.

      [–]socks[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      Chipit - you're again conflating points in these arguments. None of this applies to the question. You seem not to know or want to know about any of this. Should I explain? Two of your links are taken out of context from other subs where I am not a mod. One of your links an example where I confront someone about their aggression, as mods can do. It's OK. And then you have factual errors: no there aren't "many other insults and violations". No there is no "hardcore hate of J. Dore" that relaes to anything. My disagreement with Dore or you or anyone else is not "hardcore hate". You apply here constant emotional reactions to what I write, as if you're a victim, whereas I am merely disagreeing. (This too is OK; it's not hate. People can argue.) And your other note here is that I am attacking someone and that I am a "nazi" or whatever. Really, Chipit.

      [–]d3rr 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      my removal of an old, inactive duplicate

      but you said it was on the front page, which makes sense, because I remember that it had 5 upvotes. yes, let's debate it, but with the full and accurate details.

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

      Yes - the front page of /s/politics, though perhaps also on the front of /s/all or /s/subscribed. I should have clarified that it was - along with the duplicate - 10 or 15 submissions down the /s/politics page.

      [–]soundsituation 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      I had hit the 'remove' instead of 'report' button, and then wasn't sure what to do, as I could not find an option to cancel the removal.

      You can just hit the 'approve' button and the post will be restored.

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

      I see. I've wondered if that had meant - approve the removal - so I've never tried it. Reddit got that wrong. It should say: 'restore'

      [–]soundsituation 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      I've done it. That deleted comment was from me, letting the OP know that their submission would be better suited to a sub like s/Food. If you tag the OP the notification should still show up in their inbox even after the post has been removed.

      [–]AmericanMuskrat 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      You shouldn't need to tag, Op will get top level replies regardless.

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

      Oh true. I've disabled it on my account so I almost forgot that that was the default setting.

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

      Thanks. I see it's a 'delete' and not a 'remove', but it's good to know that there is the option for a tag (which I've not seen).

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

      No, I removed the post. You can see it in the log - it's the one from 14 days ago. The deleted comment was my own. I nixed it after OP had already replied to me, so I was sure they'd received the message.

      [–]Chipit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

      The socks account is on record (by one of the social media influencers who operate it) as utterly hating Jimmy Dore. The account engaged in censorship in an attempt to stop people from watching Dore as one of its operators considers Dore nazi-adjacent.

      It got removed from moderator status as a result of this censorship. Now it's complaining about censorship. This is the Paradox of Tolerance: we must not tolerate those who abuse our tolerance to advocate for intolerance.

      [–]Airbus320 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      I stand with chipit

      [–]socks[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      You've turned this into a personal attack, rather than address moderator standards, as had been requested (it's also low on the POD to attack users, as was the attempt to get me banned from Saidit, which is of course another form of censorship, thanks to which there is no Democrat in /s/politics; not that anyone here will miss a Democrat's opinion). Removal of an exact duplicate - especially after 24 hours of no activity - regardless of its content, is of course the norm for moderators. If you're in favor of duplicate posts on the front page of a sub, note why.

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

      It was censored because this account hates Jimmy Dore. Pretty rich to engage in censorship and then complain about censorship. Saidit just isn't the site for you. Time to move on.

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

      It seems you don't understand or don't want to understand what's been asked in the prompt. (It's unrelated to your emotional concerns. Don't respond to the post if you don't want to address the issue of duplicate posts and moderation methods. Your choice.)

      [–][deleted]  (3 children)


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

        I don't know him, but he has good imput here for the question. Regarding this:

        I definitely disagree with those divisions. Authoritarians, "Conservatives" and Libertarians are all very similar - in that they are all focused especially on one kind of legislation: make the rich richer, at the expense of the 99%. They are consistently in politics only for themselves and the wealthy. A better division would have two versions of Authoritarian, Republican, Democrat, Communist.

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

        Sure, I can help mod.

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

        EDIT: 22 hours later: Thank you - everyone - for your comments, which have been helpful and informative. I think I can see sufficient evidence here that I was unfairly banned as a moderator of 2 subs because of the complaint of one user that he didn't like my responses to him and others. My responses were normal arguments - much more polite than the responses of others on Saidit - that did not break the rules of Saidit (or I'd be banned also from Saidit). Rather, the stated reason for banning me as a mod was that I removed a post (the 1st post I've removed as a mod in /s/politics). The post in question was a 24-hour-old duplicate with no comments on the front page of /s/politics, directly below an identical post that had received comments. Thus removing this duplicate made it possible for the same OP to share one more of his other posts on the /s/politics front page, where on some days he posts 70% of the submissions that remain at the top. Thus it seems there was not a good reason to remove me as a mod of /s/politics and /s/WorldNews, for reasons summarized here, and noted in the threads below. Other users might want to consider this development.

        As a website that supports dissent and is against censorship, Saidit seemingly does not promote the equal treatment of moderators, or especially the equal treatment of those who can potentially help Saiditors understand arguments against those they disagree with. It's perhaps not terribly important to anyone here that I am censored, but it is important that we especially at Saidit understand censorship, including the censoring of mods, especially when banning a mod is a potential double standard, and thus itself a violation of a core principle for Saidit: that it's a free speech alternative to Reddit. Free speech for whom, however?