This article makes it seems like the moderators actually work for Reddit, which isn't the case. This is the problem, actually. Because it's not a paid position, the company can't use that as leverage in situations like this. The moderators essentially have nothing to lose.
Even in the article, it states that it was shutdown because of the abrupt termination of Ms. Taylor. Anybody that makes these sort of emotional decisions shouldn't be anywhere near a position of power.
If I were the CEO of Reddit, I would be making it my next goal to slowly take away the power away from these moderators.
If you were the CEO of Reddit it would go the way of Digg.
The community is what makes the site successful, and the moderators shape the community, in addition to being the chief content creators. Developing an adversarial relationship with the community or the moderators is the absolute fastest way to torpedo the site.
In addition, as a few other comments on this article have pointed out, the shutdown was not a reaction to the (sudden) firing of a (vital) employee, but to years of serious issues and mismanagement.
The first subreddit to shut down did so because it literally couldn't keep functioning without Victoria, and the rest saw an opportunity to finally voice their complaints and be heard.
You're right, I phrased that poorly. I'm aware that most posts are links to other sites, what I meant was:
- Some of the "flagship" subreddits, and AMA in particular, only work because of constant effort from admins/mods, with the bulk of community contributions ranging from useless to toxic.
- What differentiates Reddit from, say, 4chan is having some semblance of community, coherence and civility. This is partly due to the karma system, but mods play a big part in this too. "Content" was the wrong word to use, but good moderation is (IMO) as important as good submissions in many cases.
"If you were the CEO of Reddit it would go the way of Digg."
If I ran Reddit, it would be just as popular and much more profitable. The mass Digg exodus happened because their decisions ruined the content and the average user got tired of the bullshit. This has nothing to do with moderators.
"The community is what makes the site successful, and the moderators shape the community, in addition to being the chief content creators."
Are you a moderator? Do you really think the moderators create content?
Everything on the front-page is taken from other sites. The moderators created nothing. The users even posted the links..so they didn't even do that.
"but to years of serious issues and mismanagement."
Why no protests before this incident then? and why are there so many people protesting her firing?
"The first subreddit to shut down did so because it literally couldn't keep functioning without Victoria, and the rest saw an opportunity to finally voice their complaints and be heard."
Well, you shouldn't base your entire success on 1 person. A smart moderator would have multiple backups.
How do you have "multiple backups" of a full-time, paid staff position at a company you don't work for?
Perhaps the AMA mods shouldn't have let Victoria take on so much work and responsibility, but she was explicitly put in that position by Reddit-the-company. Removing her from that position without warning was a disservice to Reddit-the-community, even if the AMA mods should have been better prepared.
And no, I'm not a Reddit mod, I wouldn't even really call myself a Reddit user. I prefer HN and other niche forums for coherent discussion and imageboards for "internet culture" (and shitposting), and personally find Reddit to be an awkward hybrid of the two.
That said, this situation has the potential to bring important lessons about online communities into the mainstream, so I think it's worth correcting folks who are blaming the wrong people.
EDIT: and to clarify the dig at Digg, the Reddit mods are not the only ones getting upset. The userbase has rallied behind the mods because of their own long-standing issues, mostly regarding Reddit-the-company censoring Reddit-the-community to appeal to advertisers.
> This article makes it seems like the moderators actually work for Reddit
How do you get that impression? Second sentence of the article is: "We volunteer our time to help manage the subsection called IamA?" Other phrases include "We donate our time and talents to Reddit".
Nothing in the article suggests employment by reddit.
Those moderators are the content creators that make Reddit run, and Reddit runs only because those people have "the power".
The average Reddit user doesn't know or care where the content comes from or how it's moderated, and they similarly have no loyalty to Reddit. If those moderators get upset enough with the way the site is run and go elsewhere, the rest of Reddit's users will likely follow suit, just like they did when Digg imploded.
"Those moderators are the content creators that make Reddit run"
I disagree. Most content on Reddit is copied/pasted from elsewhere.
"and Reddit runs only because those people have "the power".
There have been many other successful communities that didn't give so much power to moderators. The moderators at HN, for instance, are paid employees.
"If those moderators get upset enough with the way the site is run and go elsewhere, the rest of Reddit's users will likely follow suit, just like they did when Digg imploded."
Users fled Digg because it made a really bad experience for the average person going to the site. Moderators are a minority and can easily be replaced. As long as the average user experience is un-changed, Reddit will remain popular.
When a large company replaces the management team, most people are un-fazed unless it actually effects them in some way.
The moderators made the mistake of using the nuclear option. A bad strategy in the long-run.
Another simple solution is to make it so the moderators can move a sub-reddit to private, but if the community has over a certain amount of subscribers, it's pushed up to a paid employee before it is activated.
This removes 90% of the mods power with very little effort. Most might not even notice until they try to changing the sub-reddit to private, which for the most popular ones, is rare.
You think they should begin paying moderators? Any suggestions where that money should come from? Any thoughts on whether it will lead to conflicts of interest on the larger subreddits which could harm the site (such as, and especially, IAmA)?
I think that's very short-sighted. The moderators represent and manage a good portion of the content creators that draw users to reddit.
They shut down AMAs because they were left hanging with several upcoming high-profile guests. The person that had arranged and managed guests in the past was suddenly gone, and there was no communication from Reddit as to what the transition plan was.
Personally, I don't think that's unreasonable at all.
Even in the article, it states that it was shutdown because of the abrupt termination of Ms. Taylor. Anybody that makes these sort of emotional decisions shouldn't be anywhere near a position of power.
If I were the CEO of Reddit, I would be making it my next goal to slowly take away the power away from these moderators.