• ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’d be very surprised if the admins DON’T have a Richard Nixonesque “enemies list” that they check before letting new mods join the team. that level of control-freakishness and pettiness is right up their alley.

        Edit: missed a word.

    • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the best way because minimal risk and effort for you, and you can always say you didn’t have access to automated tools to do moderation, which is true.

        • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The risk is that they start suing users that act malicious, and this can’t be seen as malicious just incompetent.

          Edit: I don’t see users doing nothing as malicious. I’m talking about the one’s breaking stuff being sued.

          • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            31
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Suing unpaid volunteers for not working hard enough? Not a lawyer, but surely you can’t use sue an employee for not working hard enough. Just do a really poor job, don’t moderate well. What are they going to argue?

              • Zetaphor@zemmy.cc
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                A lawsuit requires them to be breaking a law. Doing a shit or even malicious job at something you volunteered for is not against the law. Mods are not employees of reddit. If the argument is that they’re somehow harming the product, that same argument could be extended to the protestors and shitposters. It wouldn’t hold any water in an actual court.

                  • Zetaphor@zemmy.cc
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I don’t think anyone ever was lol. If reddit even tried something like that they’d be opening a legal can of worms that would cause them way more harm than good

          • quantumoverdrive@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            sue em back if thats the way the wanna play it i think its high time we got the aclu involved if they seem to think their content is theirs— is an image microsofts etc cuz you used one of their programs to draw it? id say it falls more on the previous mods etc is the way to argue this in court now that i think about it why arent people trying to sue reddit more for billions? futhermore i think they are hiding stuff on their end to investors i think its time the sec got wind of this im a counterpuncher and i dont stop until the enemy is doa thats my mentality

            • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not a bad idea, it requires some organisation and money, it could be done, I’m not sure about this having a legal foot to stand on but someone will know.

            • Boz (he/him)
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If you’re talking about suing Reddit for copyright/intellectual property law infringement, unfortunately, that’s unlikely to happen. Reddit can claim certain rights over user content because it’s not against the law to sign over those rights through a user agreement. It’s a bad idea, but it is likely to be considered legally binding. The “right to be forgotten” under GDPR is a specific form of control of content that can’t be signed away, but it’s not about copyright.