Looks like r/antiwork mods made the subreddit private in response to this post
This fiasco highlights that such forums are vulnerable to the whims of a few individuals, and if those individuals can be subverted than the entire community can be destroyed. Reddit communities are effectively dictatorships where the mods cannot be held to account, recalled, or dismissed, even when community at large disagrees with them.
This led me to think that Lemmy is currently vulnerable to the same problem. I'm wondering if it would make sense to brainstorm some ideas to address this vulnerability in the future.
One idea could be to have an option to provide members of a community with the ability to hold elections or initiate recalls. This could be implemented as a special type post that allows community to vote, and if a sufficient portion of the community participates then a mod could be elected or recalled.
This could be an opt in feature that would be toggled when the community is created, and would be outside the control of the mods from that point on.
Maybe it's a dumb idea, but I figured it might be worth having a discussion on.
That sounds stupid and bad. What's frustrating there is people not exposed to accountability (paradoxically happens in "democratic" elections of mods), people can just be confidently wrong and contemptuous. I do like the idea of mods having some accountability (though I also thing there's a right wing troll thing about always complaining about mods that makes me hesitant to follow that sentiment too far), but some other way than votes to elect mods is probably for the best.
Well, if this feeling of yours becomes pervasive enough, then it becomes a part of the culture here, that you can't complain about mods. By extension, you can't even complain about the concept of moderation.
In truth, whichever faction is the smaller and thus vulnerable to moderation is the one that complains. That just happens to be the right at the moment, since technology (and technology websites) skew young. If they were in charge of the moderation, they wouldn't be complaining about it, they'd be embracing and celebrating it, and the positions would be reversed.
This isn't inherently partisan. It's procedural. Like when Congress complains about the filibuster. Right now Democrats hate it, because it's used against them. When the Republicans pick the majorities back up in the midterms, they'll want to get rid of it and Democrats will tell us that it's the only thing standing between us and doomsday.
That one flipflops because it fluctuates between advantageous and disadvantageous. But moderation is controlled by only one side, and they retain it.
I mean if the only available choices are that we swing from one extreme to the other, then sure. We can always extrapolate from reasonably stated opinions to unreasonable extremes and then only talk about unreasonably extrapolated caricatures.
There's a middle version where it's perfectly doable to identify bad actors who pressure mods with the intent of normalizing tolerance for bad activity.
I'm old enough to remember when the dominant cultural influences on the internet were left: Howard Dean, the "netroots", the advent of blogging and media criticism, online activism in response to the Iraq war. This cultural criticism of mods did not exist at the time. With 2014-2015 and the onset of gamergate, complaining about mods became the norm, and gamergate and the politics of cultural reaction eventually became intertwined with the right wing, and the complaint about mods, and new narratives about "free speech" in the context of online platforms emerged. It's not the case that there has been a consistent swinging of the pendulum back and forth, really, and it's not the case that arguments re: moderation were equivalent.