SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the when-people-don't-think-things-through-all-the-way dept.
According to /u/Spez, Reddit CEO, the reports of messages edited without any user consent or knowledge are correct as he admits to have done it so himself:
Hey Everyone,
Yep. I messed with the "fuck u/spez" comments, replacing "spez" with r/the_donald mods for about an hour. It's been a long week here trying to unwind the r/pizzagate stuff. As much as we try to maintain a good relationship with you all, it does get old getting called a pedophile constantly. As the CEO, I shouldn't play such games, and it's all fixed now. Our community team is pretty pissed at me, so I most assuredly won't do this again.
Fuck u/spez.
The edits were made in a thread linked from the Washington Post which described the recent ban of the /r/pizzagate subreddit which tried to uncover child-molesters and recently moved to voat.co.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday November 27 2016, @12:34AM
i used to moderate on a harm reduction board, and there were obvious reasons why moderators needed the ability to edit users' posts - to shut down any illegal activities being conducted publicly through the board, like drug sourcing, giving out grey-market vendor information (protecting both the users and the vendors from law enforcement), etc. any edited posts always indicated that they were edited, by whom and at what time, though. reddit regularly gets used for meeting for illegal activities (like meeting people in your area to buy drugs), so i can't say i'm against mods having the ability to edit users' posts, but there needs to be something indicating that a post was edited, and maybe just limit it to subreddits associated with illegal activities.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Sunday November 27 2016, @03:27AM
To my knowledge on Reddit, subbredit moderators can only delete posts, and not edit individual ones. I never bothered to setup the reddit.com source code so I don't really know the full scope of admin powers over there. In addition, I can understand in some cirmstances unrestricted editing is warrented as long as its posted that it does happen (usually in forum rules), and there's notification that it has happened.
For something like a harm reduction board, hosting something like that on USENET would be extremely tricky due to the almost non-existant availability to delete posts (yes, I know cancelation messages exist, most servers ignore them for better or worse).
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday November 27 2016, @03:18PM
Wouldn't deleting/blocking posts be sufficient for that purpose?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday November 27 2016, @04:15PM
if the whole post is bad, sure, but often there would be a good, useful post with somebody's phone number or a website or something tacked on there, so deleting the whole post would be overkill. the goal in harm reduction is to save lives, and getting more people to adopt the mindset helps the cause, deleting a whole post rather than just the offending information can lead to a counter-productive "well fuck you too" kind of response from the poster, decreasing our pool of knowledge and potential lifesavers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @08:26PM
People before rules.