[p4bl0]

Classic attempt to break a strike. Would mods be employee, this would be illegal (at least in France). This shows how Reddit the company think how the people who work for them for free on Reddit the platform and make its value.

[mulletbum]

Mods don't work for Reddit. They volunteer for Reddit moderation. Much like you can volunteer to be the leader of the DND club at a local hobby shop. They are not an employee. People who don't like what Reddit is doing should stop showing up. Mods who don't like it should stop moderating. It's as simple as that, if enough people agree, Reddit will be no more.

I will bet Reddit will be just fine.

[bbor]

> Would mods be employee

Also breaking out “nothing they’re doing is illegal!!” isn’t exactly the slam dunk many seem to think it is, IMO.

[KeplerBoy]

Of course there are within their rights from a legal pov. Doesn't change the fact that it's a terrible, outright hostile move.

[goatlover]

It was hostile by mods to close a sub like r/nba the day after the finals, and hostile to close an important sub like r/science. A poll with a small fraction of the users that was only up for a few hours and potentially brigaded doesn't mean the majority of actual users wanted those subs to close.

[Timon3]

How would the poll have to be done to convince you it's what the majority of actual users want?

[goatlover]

Open for a couple days in advance and only for members of that sub. The indefinite one should have opened up for a new vote. Maybe r/nba could have provided a link to an alternative sub for discussing the nba finals on Monday.

[Timon3]

> Open for a couple days in advance and only for members of that sub.

How do you do that? Specifically, how would you limit the poll?

[PepperdineG]

>Mods don't work for Reddit. They volunteer for Reddit moderation. Much like you can volunteer to be the leader of the DND club at a local hobby shop. They are not an employee.

DND has no control over people doing DND at a local hobby shop, but if Reddit gets directly involved in hiring and firing and other such management of free labor then it is setting up to be viewed as an employer. There are many differences between an unaffiliated 3rd party club and direct corporate involvement in personnel management where the more Reddit tries to manage its free labor, the more it runs the risk of running afoul of FLSA. Under labor law there is a difference in working for free for a non-profit, government, etc versus a for-profit entity where they are not the same when it comes to providing free labor and FLSA rights cannot be waived away.

[mulletbum]

They aren't firing mods, they are telling the mods they can't come in the store anymore, they are free to look through the window.

[jimcsharp]

I'd love to see a poison mod take up their offer then and start the ball rolling on asserting some rights.

[mmcgaha]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_Community_Leader_Program

[faangsticle]

They work for reddit for free. You can work for someone without an employment contract or official relationship.

[visarga]

> Much like you can volunteer to be the leader of the DND club at a local hobby shop.

A DND club with an IPO?

[jonathankoren]

The club isn't IPOing. The real estate investment trust that hosts the DND club is. Ironically the REIT's main appeal to investors is that it's popular with DND clubs.

[slg]

My mind immediately went to strike-breaking too. This isn't quite the same as they are targeting a volunteer group that has shown no interest to form a union, but this is so obviously a play out of the union busting handbook. Divide the group, make it seem like only a few select leaders want whatever they are negotiating over, and offering to elevate cooperative people into positions of power if they are willing to participate in a coup.

[bbor]

Is it not a real strike if the volunteers provide labor? A question for the philosophers, and in the coming years/decades, the lawyers.

In the us it is the national labor relations board, after all! Not employement relations

[slaymaker1907]

I think it’s something different than a strike and should thus not have any legal protections. Strikes are fair in some sense because workers aren’t being paid during that time (or at the very most by the union coffers) which goes up against the company’s ability to weather the lost revenue during the strike.

In this case, mods can keep subreddits dark without any cost to themselves because they aren’t being paid by Reddit. It’d be like if library volunteers protested by closing the library and stopping any new volunteers from entering by installing a lock on the door. OFC the library is within their rights to break the lock to let other volunteers in.

[bbor]

Mmmm I have an issue with the specifics of that metaphor applying to Reddit, but in general, people volunteer because volunteering brings them some non-monetary benefit, so I see it as basically the same dynamic. Of course you can’t lock the doors, just like you can’t physically obstruct/harm scabs.

In the near future when AGI eliminates scarcity (2025?) this will have to be litigated!

[AdamJacobMuller]

The analogy appears fitting at first glance, but it's crucial to note that the moderators in question aren't simply choosing to abstain from their duties—they're actively hindering others who might wish to take up those responsibilities.

I may not be an expert in French law, yet an analogy that comes to mind would be envisioning workers of a grocery store who've decided to go on strike. But rather than merely expressing their refusal to work, they also opt to seal the store's doors, blocking customers from entering.

Of course, customers might find the current situation unfavorable due to the absence of employees (think of barren shelves, paralleling communities overpopulated with off-topic discussions). Management, too, would likely find the situation objectionable due to a lack of employees to ensure transactions are being made legally (equivalent to the absence of moderators who uphold site rules, a scenario potentially hazardous to Reddit). Even though management might be compelled to shut down the store under these circumstances, it's essential to remember that closure remains a management prerogative, not a decision for the striking workers.

[amatecha]

> they're actively hindering others who might wish to take up those responsibilities.

Isn't that literally exactly what a strike is? No one crosses the picket line if a sufficient majority agreed to undertake the strike?

[AdamJacobMuller]

Again, not an expert on French law, but in the US you can just hire someone else to do the job in the case of most strikes. pejoratively called scabs.

[progval]

It's illegal for employers to hire fixed-term employees in this case: https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F34

However, they can have volunteers fill the position: https://www.editions-tissot.fr/droit-travail/jurisprudence-s...

[AdamJacobMuller]

Interesting that it’s the case that they can have volunteers in french law given the context of reddit volunteers.

[x86x87]

If this was France the mods would already be building a guillotine

[visarga]

That's how The Reign of Terror was invented.

[wil421]

How does that work for online French Forums or other internet platforms that are community based? What about old school BBSes?

[lm28469]

A strike is very well defined, a "volunteer moderator strike" doesn't constitute a strike from a legal perspective

[wil421]

>Would mods be an employee.

I took this as mods would be considered employees in France. After a second read, it looks like they meant something different.