[jknoepfler]

That's an extremely reductive claim. Can you really not think of more mundane reasons someone might find themselves moderating reddit?

It's hard to imagine "ideology" being relevant to the vast majority of reddit... Do you really think the moderators of ELI5 or PeopleFuckingDying or some obscure porn reddit or whatever are primarily concerned with "ideology"?

I used to help moderate a poker forum. I was a professional poker player, and an extremely active user of the forums. I don't recall pushing an ideology beyond "keep discussions constructive and topical."

The person you just replied to was a mod. Are you implying that their work was somehow about pushing an ideology?

[aliqot]

> It's hard to imagine "ideology" being relevant to the vast majority of reddit...

This is egregiously incorrect.

[jknoepfler]

In what sense? Would tipping that scale entail that "all reddit moderators are only and exclusively motivated by ideology?"

[mring33621]

"keep discussions constructive and topical."

is subjective

[jknoepfler]

Of course it is. That does not entail that forums moderators (myself included) are exclusively motivated by a desire to push an ideology, which was the topic at hand.

Nor does "subjective" entail "ideological" unless you're going to torture the term ideology being having a useful meaning.

[thatguy0900]

We're not talking about forum moderators, really, but power moderators. Someone who mods a random topic they like is probably decent at it and not trying to push something. Someone whos gotten themselves in a position to mod 10+ of the largest subreddits on reddit is probably not doing very much actual modding and is very much trying to push something.

[kibwen]

The person above stated "Why do Reddit moderators do their work? They are paid in power." They appear to be talking about moderators in general, not just power mods. The root comment here also appears to be talking about mods in general (with little idea what they're talking about, AFAICT).

[rovolo]

> Nor does "subjective" entail "ideological" unless you're going to torture the term ideology being having a useful meaning.

What is your useful definition of "ideology"? Why isn't "subjective" included in your definition? Why would including "subjective" in your definition make it less useful?

Before hearing your response, I'm going to guess that you're thinking ideologies need to be "significant" for them to be an ideology. I'm guessing you don't think that subjective opinions are ideological because you don't think they're important enough to get that label.

[retpirato]

Reddit mods have a habit of blocking/censoring views they don't agree with, (mainly all on one side, consistent with their ideology). That doesn't mean it applies to every subreddit, but if it weren't a widespread problem do you really think anybody would be talking about it?

[unethical_ban]

Reddit's larger subs, particularly their political ones, are 100% content farming and ideological cults. Subs with hundreds of thousands of millions of subscribers that regurgitate twitter screenshots with timestamps removed, and where dissent is often banned. Antiwork, Latestagecapitalism, WhitePeopleTwitter, and many others.

Related, I got banned from entertainment for saying an exchange between jk Rowling and a trans person wasn't "mocking". I didn't defend her, I just called out a shitty title.

When I messaged the mods saying, in essence, "y'all are dumb and need to distinguish fact from opinion" they flagged me for harassment, which is one demerit away from a sitewide ban.

I know some mods are decent, and it's better in smaller subs with some actual purpose (city, hobby) that isn't memes, violence, porn or politics. Any of those categories, and with subs of any large size, and it gets really scummy really fast.

(Shout out to r/Texas mods for not sucking).

[bitwize]

It's common knowledge now that abstaining from politics is taking the side of the oppressor. This has the effect of giving many subreddits and other topical communities a political orientation even if politics is nominally offtopic. To give an example, it is increasingly hard to find an online knitting community that tolerates conservative viewpoints; most have followed the lead of Ravelry.

[kspacewalk2]

This absurd beyond belief. Knitting has precisely nothing to do with politics, so I struggle to imagine what "conservative knitting viewpoints" even are. Or liberal ones, for that matter. Cross-stitching is a tool of systemic racism? Purl stitching is inviting the illegals to tukk-urr-jurrbs?

To me phrases like "abstaining from politics is taking the side of the oppressor" are just so damn American. You guys, more than any other nationality I've met, tend to dive head first into whatever ideology or sect or even hobby you happen to get into. There are, of course, people who are "extra" in every viewpoint or occupation. But more so for Americans.

[kcplate]

>This absurd beyond belief. Knitting has precisely nothing to do with politics, so I struggle to imagine what "conservative knitting viewpoints" even are. Or liberal ones, for that matter. Cross-stitching is a tool of systemic racism? Purl stitching is inviting the illegals to tukk-urr-jurrbs?

Apparently politics definitely leaked into that community a few years back. I recall reading stories about it back then.

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/2/25/18234950/knitting-ra...

I am not part of that community but if it behaves like almost any other online community, any accusations of racism seem to always create a backlash that lumps the conservatives leaning folks within the group to racism whether the conservative has outright committed any racism or not. There tends to be a guilt by association that seems to happen often—where if you have opinion “A” (some standard conservative opinion on some subject not directly tied to racism) you must also have opinion “B” (some fringe race-oriented opinion sometimes found in conservative circles).

So folks just stay silent and try and just knit (or focus on whatever interest of the group), afraid to disclose any political opinion in a non-political interest group for fear of the label. Then…they get called out because if there isn’t overt acknowledgement by concerned members of the “correct” political ideology. That results in the abstaining is oppression attitude. You then find these kind of communities creating rules that don’t just discourage political conversations but rules attempting to exclude people who may fall into a political viewpoint altogether.

I don’t know if it’s distinctly American, but it definitely seems to happen here a lot. To be honest, I find it all ridiculous.

[bitwize]

> There tends to be a guilt by association that seems to happen often—where if you have opinion “A” (some standard conservative opinion on some subject not directly tied to racism) you must also have opinion “B” (some fringe race-oriented opinion sometimes found in conservative circles).

To be fair, U.S. conservatives are only reaping what they sow. The overtly racist wing of conservatism received such a drubbing after civil rights went through that they had to scale back the racist rhetoric and talk about social and economic policies that disadvantaged certain races, but appealed to traditional ideas about federalism and small government. So now whenever anyone talks about federalism and small government, it is assumed that there is a racist agenda lurking behind those appeals because historically, there was.

[kcplate]

So it’s ok then to tell some 80 year old lady who just wants to share knitting things with other knitters that she is no longer welcome because some knitting activist asked her if she voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and she said “yes”?

Sorry, but that is just hateful and completely unnecessary.

[monocasa]

One example of the top of my head: knitting is probably one of the most heavily gendered hobbies, which carries a ton of political baggage with it wrt gender politics.

[common-know]

No, it's not "common knowledge" that abstaining from politics is siding with the oppressor.

That's an unfalsifiable ideological assertion that has been well-socialized, but that doesn't make it fact and lots of people disagree with it, because it's an opinion, and it's one that presupposes a Foucaultian worldview of human dynamics as being able to be distilled down to pure power struggles.

It's absurd to see that bandied about as truth just because it's "common knowledge." I bet in Communist China it was "common knowledge" right before the famine that killing the sparrows would bolster the harvest, too.

[monocasa]

It does not "presuppose a Foucaultian worldview". You have centuries of this sentiment permeating culture at the very least.

One example of many:

> Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.

~ John Stuart Mill

[jknoepfler]

So the implication you're drawing from this... which was the topic at hand... is that all knitting forum moderators are motivated exclusively be the desire to espouse an ideology?

[floor2]

Please don't troll or make bad-faith arguments on HN. This post contains two instances of moving the goalposts and using extreme language for strawman attacks.

People are pointing out that moderation is often biased and that the power of controlling the narrative and topics & viewpoints that are allowed is a motivator for many moderators. Your strawman argument that "all moderators" being "exclusively" motivated is just rhetoric to try to win against a claim no one is making.

[bitwize]

No, but preventing the Nazi camel from getting its nose in the tent is now an important motivator for moderators.

[jknoepfler]

Sure, yeah. I doubt most knitting forum moderators wake up thinking "gosh I'd better get to that knitting forum to prevent the Nazi camel from getting its nose into the knitting tent," but I don't know any knitting forum moderators.

The comment I was replying to - "all individuals of class X are motivated exclusively by vicious desire Y" - isn't a truth-seeking comment, and I think we can do better.