• ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    When I say “up the chain,” I mean towards the admins. A platform isn’t gonna let just anyone start a chain, because any random loser could just be the start of an access chain for a bunch of bots, with no oversight. So I conclude that the chain would necessarily start with the website admins.

    My experience online is that the upper levels of moderation/administration feel beholden to no one once they get enough users. It’s been shown time and time again that you can act like a dictator if you have enough people under you to make some of them expendable. It might not be a problem on, say, db0. However, I’ve seen Discord servers that are big enough to have this problem. I could definitely see companies abusing this to minimize risk.

    So, for example, pretend Reddit had this system during the API nonsense:

    • You’re a nobody who is complaining about it.
    • Spez sees you are dissenting and follows your chain.
    • Turns out you’re probably gonna ask for a guarantee from people you share some sort of relationship/community with, even if it’s cursory.
    • Spez suspends everyone up the chain for 14 days until he reaches someone “important” like a mod.
    • Everyone points fingers at you for daring to say something that could get them in trouble, and you suffer social consequences, subreddit bans, etc.
    • Spez keeps doing this, but randomly suspends mods up the chain that aren’t explicitly loyal to Reddit (the company).
    • People start threatening to revoke access from others if they say things that break Reddit ToS or piss off the admins.
    • Dystopia complete

    Maybe I’m still misunderstanding how this system works, but it seems like it would start to run into problems as a website got more users and as people became reliant on it for their social life (like I am with Discord and some of my friends/family are with Facebook).

    • Lvxferre
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Got it - up “up”.

      Yes, if this sort of chain starts with the admins, they could exploit it for censorship. However that doesn’t give them “new” powers to abuse, it’s still the “old” powers with extra steps.

      And, in this case, the “old” powers are full control over the platform and access to privileged info. Even without this system, the same shitty admins could do things yielding the same dystopia as your example - such as censoring complains through vaguely worded bans (“multiple, repeated violations of the content policy”) or exploiting social relations to throw user against user, since they know who you interact with.

      So, while I think that you’re noticing a real problem, I think that this problem is deeper and appears even without this feature - it’s the fact that people would be willing to play along such abusive admins on first place, even as the later misuses systems at their disposal to silence the former. They should be getting up and leaving.

      It’s also tempting to think on ways to make this system headless, with multiple concurrent chains started by independent parties, that platforms are allowed to accept or decline independently. In this case admins wouldn’t be responsible so much for creating those chains, but accepting or declining chains created by someone else. With multiple sites being able to use the same chains.

      • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        My main criticism was how this system enables admins to implement collective punishment with almost zero effort, unless it’s made headless.

        • Lvxferre
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          I got it. And to be fair it is an actual concern.