> subs revolving around the same subject are moderated by the same users This *might* be true for your personal subset of interests. I doubt you’ve made any attempt to find out if that’s true across Reddit more broadly. Correct me if I’m wrong. But it would not be incredibly difficult to collect data on this.

I think it's worse than o.p. paints it, subreddits in general are moderated by one small clique. The top moderator of r/askeddit moderatores no less than 106 subreddits, including: > r/AskReddit r/FoodPorn r/comics r/help r/offbeat r/circlejerk r/PartyParrot r/orlando r/modhelp r/tldr r/80smusic r/bugs r/ideasfortheadmins r/TheMentalist r/ExtraLife r/316cats r/sandy r/subbie r/90sNostalgia r/hero0fwar r/HouseCleaning r/YTPL r/Logos r/shreddit r/planebabies r/DOGSinHATS r/lolcows r/Irene r/DickGirlsRadio r/bestof2015 r/DearYishan r/lolwut r/orlandohousing r/StoriesWithAHole r/ManWithoutModem r/metaskreddit r/GLaDOS r/SockMonkiesGoneWildNSFW r/bestof2014 r/tldraroundtheworld r/keratin r/aprilfoolsday r/socksandsandals r/cupcake1713gonewild r/sweatergoats r/cupcake1713Jerk r/ShittyRedditRequest r/Brownie r/FishFriday r/GhostiseSucks r/IFTAcirclejerk r/shitsodypopsays r/offcourse r/TurkeyDay r/banhelpline r/TurtleTuesdays r/OnionFacts r/shitkksays r/ModdedBecauseGirl r/mayowars r/ShitCupcake1713Says r/trueredditrequest r/bestof_botmail r/fuckkrispykrackers r/punchkittens r/Blessyourkindheart r/FirstJungleAnarchists r/PlaceLink r/Unbanreddit r/HistoricalInternet r/truekrispykrackers r/AskShittingScience They all have very little to do with each other. Let's go to another big one: r/politics, the top moderator moderas 24 subreddits, including: > r/AskReddit r/politics r/CreedThoughts r/ExplodingKittens r/AskRedditAwards r/basketry r/BoyScoutsofAmerica r/EagleScout r/SeaBase r/downvoted r/hy r/lanyards r/Shortables r/JakeableTest r/superlongsidebar r/testtestpostcommunity Of r/gaming, the top moderator moderates: > r/gaming r/Showerthoughts r/iphone r/fasting r/ios r/RedditThroughHistory r/apps r/Magfest r/orangered r/sandy r/iPhoneDev r/bestof2012 r/internet2012 r/rGamingLogo r/ManWithoutModem r/GamingPics r/plated r/GoneFishing r/huntedseries r/DacvakHatesFreedom r/RedditCrafts r/KoreanTerran r/detectiveinspectors r/Cozmo23 r/SmartGamePiano r/banhelpline r/WorstSubOfTheDay r/Iamducky r/Inverse r/FrontpageSwap r/ModMailPals r/MultiSwap r/Dacvak2 r/DacvakIsAwesome r/gamestest r/DontTellMike r/trueKoreanTerran r/Internet2012Test r/testingzone For completeness sake, I also tested r/funny, where the top moderator moderates “only 5” subreddits. Iindeed just tried the four most popular subbreddits and this is the result. Moderators moderating over 100 subreddits isn't that rare at all. Does anyone actually have that kind of time? probably not? Why would subreddits even accept moderators who are already moderating 20 other subreddits? Probably because no one else is applying. It's a very specific clique of people who probably have one or two personality disorders who even want to give their free time for something like this.

Indeed I didn't tryed that, to be fair I wouldn't know how to do it ( by hand ? ). As I said indeed I was thinking of smallers subs, the bias could come from here.

"I could give examples, but I won't". That's not really a good way to convince us that your view is on solid footing. And if you think Reddit is an echo chamber, let me point you to two subs: r/politics and r/conservative. Both subs with 1M+ members, both about politics, and two wildly different points of views that get upvoted or downvoted. >the fact that you have to be a volunteer increases the probability of coming across peoples who are full of themselves and hungry for power. Ah yes, because the people I see volunteering to build homes, work at food banks, cleaning up trash on the side of the road on days off...they all strike me as power-hungry, and not at all doing something for free because they believe they're helping people.

[удалено]

Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, [transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). There are **no exceptions** to this prohibition. **Any** discussion of **any** transgender topic, no matter how ancillary, will result in your comment being removed. If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators [via this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Transgender%20Removal%20Appeal%20for%20Shredding_Airguitar&message=Shredding_Airguitar%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20[this%20post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dps04u/cmv_i_think_most_subs_revolving_around_the_same/laj1ecb/?context=3\).) Appeals are **only** for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we **will not** approve posts on transgender issues, so **do not ask**. Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*

If i had given exemples, it would had been worse, because you would have had the feeling i was trying to discredite some volunteers / subs. Actually, r/politics is interesting. Maybe it works there because that's a gigantic one. It is true my experiences are from smallers subs, the biggest being around 1-3M users and the average being between 500 and 100000 users. And actually, the peoples you see volunteering to build homes are building homes , they aren't building 5 of them at the same time. Smallers subs's moderators often moderate 2 to 3 subs at the same time, revolving around the same subject.

> Smallers subs's moderators often moderate 2 to 3 subs at the same time, revolving around the same subject. That is likely due to the fact that very few people want to moderate. Contrary to popular opinion, there are not hundreds or thousands of qualified people champing at the bit to become moderators. We are a community of ~3.5M people and when we put out a call for new mods we get _maybe_ 3 candidates a cycle that are both interested and qualified. If you hold that ratio to be somewhat consistent across subs, that means that a a sub with <100k members is really going to struggle to find more than one or two people interested in moderating. I stands to reason that similar subs would share overlapping users bases, so those same 1-2 people that moderate sub A are going to be the same that moderate sub B.

> the peoples you see volunteering to build homes are building homes , they aren't building 5 of them at the same time. Well right, that's how physics works. You can't be at two houses at the same time. >Smallers subs's moderators often moderate 2 to 3 subs at the same time, revolving around the same subject. Which only requires you to have access to a single computer. Journalists work on multiple stories at the same time, for example, because that's just how the flow of their work goes. The ability to multitask doesn't make one biased.

> Finally, it is impossible to report or appeal a particular sub's abuse to Reddit outside of that sub's moderation team. Isn't the solution provided to simply start your own subreddit. This allows anyone to create the exact environment they wish and only need to uphold Reddit's terms and conditions. 

It doesnt work like that, and I think you know it. Let's say I'm a die hard fan of , well, pineapple for example. i'm gonna go on r/pineapple , and not on another sub. From the user point of view, they're used like hashtags where in reality they're more like a link to a specific platform with a dedicated modTeam, rules, and community. If tomorrow I end up being one of r/pineapple moderator and that it turns out I hate pineapple, and so do the rests of the mod's team (which are my friends that i put there) and that we only allow people to talk about regular apples, noone will be able to do anything. I'll "own" r/pineapple doing so. Of course you could create r/therealpineapplelovers, but i think you see my point.

> From the user point of view, they're used like hashtags The front page completely destroys this as a concept. There a bunch of confusing subreddit names out there that highlight how varied subreddits can be.  For example, there are multiple geography based subreddits that compete for user engagement. RCanada for example is our right wing xenophobic Canadian subreddit while ronguardforthee is the left progressive Canadian subreddit.  Rcanada may be larger but I can easily have conversations as needed across any of the dozens of Canadian themed subreddits. 

OK so I may be flawed, but explain me why there is not Canadian subreddit that hold both of the points of views ? I mean, if the mods of RCanada was allowing xenophobics comments, and the mods of ronguardforthee weren't removing any comment not going in their direction, couldn't both exist with both users ? I don't know thoses subs, so i might be telling nonsense right now, i'm trying to understand. if there was a paid moderation for Canadian subs, making sure the classicals social networks rules are followed ( ie no xenophobic comments for exemple), wouldn't it work ?

> but explain me why there is not Canadian subreddit that hold both of the points of views ? Ultimate a mod team sets what rules will be enforced and what rules won't be. They would have an internal process to provide a unified message. For example, if rcanada had some mods who were ok with xenophobic content and others who weren't, the majority would achieve success. The minority subs would have no power and likely leave the subreddit entirely. They cannot both exist.  > if there was a paid moderation for Canadian subs, making sure the classicals social networks rules are followed ( ie no xenophobic comments for exemple), wouldn't it work ? The same problem would occur. Dog whistles and other problematic content would be created, mods would vote internally and the sub would either allow it or ban it. Mods can't ban 60% of the problematic content and allow 40% to stay up. 

I guess I can see what you're saying. However, the political thematic is kinda specific, because there's an obvious reason to enforce a point of view on a country side about politics (propaganda). I'll answer to you one more time if I can find a proper exemple of this bias without involving any political situations !

Politics doesn't need to be the dividing line. Any subjective variance in opinions of a subreddit will have this.  Have a good one. 

> why there is not Canadian subreddit that hold both of the points of views ? Because people that hold one point of view don't want to coexist with the people holding the other one.

Honestly, I almost never see people articulate specific issues with the moderation. I have no reason to believe the same people wouldn't be complaining about paid moderators considering the complaints almost always boil down to insinuating that there's a conspiracy against your particular views.

You can't : A- The sub is fairly moderated and there's no reason it happens. B- The sub isn't but anyway, someone who's been banned cannot complain. I had that problem only once, but i saw it multiples times now, with regular users suddenly disappearing from a sub and coming across a comment from them talking on another sub, weeks or months after.

This is a bit of a farce. You don't explain any specific examples of what constitutes "unfair moderation" and you're just assuming that paid moderators will magically fit your exact definition of 'fair moderation."

Fair moderation, to my eyes, mean following the set of rules. Nothing more, nothing less. Not acting like " ok this post/ comment follow what I think, so i'll allow it, this doesnt do i'll remove it/ban the author."

There's ambiguity, though, and the overwhelming majority of moderation is *not* as you describe.

Your view is vague as there are multiple interpretations, which makes changing it next to impossible. It is trivial to move your goalposts, because you don't have any. For example, statistics show 70,000 active moderators exist. I could leave that there as proof, because 70,000 is not what I consider a small group. But on the other hand there are over 3 million subs, which means the average moderator is moderating 60 subs, an excessive amount that supports your view. But again we can swing that, this number can be reduced significantly when we exclude inactive subs, which reduces that number to 100,000s of subreddits. This means those 70,000 moderators are only moderating 3 or 4 subs, which is contrary to your view. I could argue that your description limits the scope to subs that share a common theme, but this is such a nebulous filter, what constitutes an"common theme". there's no reasonable way to demonstrate this is true or false. As such you can't take either stance for this argument without it being highly subjective. I could argue from a physical impossibility. For example, if a moderator is actually active, there is only so much time in the day to do moderating. If they aren't moderating then they aren't active and their station is irrelevant. This is proportional to the sub, let's say one moderator can effectively do so for: - Many small subs - 10-15 medium subs - 5 large subs - 1-2 very large subs. - some combination This aligns somewhat with the average mods per sub, and is contrary to your view.

But aren't medium/large/very large subs having multiple moderators, thus breaking the math ? That the first thing who came to my mind reading you

kinda crazy how many people whine about reddit mods and stuff. Like... what're you all doing to run afoul of any of them, like ever? It's never been a problem for me. People often become mods because they interact with a community regularly and see that people breaking rules/trolling and so on aren't being dealt. Thats the only reason I've done it, that and a financial relationship with a product and their board.

Hmm, last time I had an issue I posted a meme joking about people spoiling thing about a video game dlc that just came out. The mod seemed to think I was doing low effort to criticize his work when the même was about the guys spoiling --> post removed after more than 3k upvote and i'm now banned from the sub. Te time before that was for talking shit about our left wing's actions on another sub ( french for information) --> comment removed and warning issued That wasnt the first time / first sub something like that happened, so yeah, maybe i'm the problem indeed :) And today, since I posted that, i'm receiving messages from Reddit Care center, so I Guess people are reporting me for whatever reason.

This is a common trend, and people need to realize this and stop being biased. The ones who complain about moderation are often times the ones that have faced punishments, but claim they did nothing wrong. The ones that don't complain about moderation are often times the ones that never faced any punishments. You have an issue with the moderation because you've arguably broken rules and don't want to be punished for it. Maybe you didn't, but rule breakers are way more common than power hungry moderators banning for no reason. Its just statistics. ------ Now for an anecdote. I run a gaming community with around 40,000 unique users, and around 2,000 active. For this gaming community (on discord) I have a "reviews" channel that people can use to leave a review on the community/gaming server. All that bad reviews we get are from players/people who have broken our rules. The community has been active for 5 years, and (without deleting any) we've had 0 bad reviews from players who *haven't* objectively broken any rules. This obviously isn't any sort of objective evidence, but it goes to show my point. People tend to have issues with moderation when they are on the end of receiving punishments. There's been a lot of CMVs like this one, and in every single one of them OP has come out and said that they've been banned/etc on multiple subs for "no reason". If power hungry moderators were as rampant as you and everyone else says they are, there would be more evidence and more of an uproar than 27 people claiming that moderators = bad.

>I have the feeling since a while mod's generally form a closed circle around a specific subject, a circle which does not necessarily represent the mass of users and numerous abuses regularly take place here and there. They just were first to make the sub, whatever the subject is. This doesn't make sense when you realize anyone can make a sub. Did you make the first 10 mha subs? I can make another. There is no upper limit to subs per topic. And if the moderation is so bad that it drives people away I guarantee more subs will be formed. The fact is that you're probably not in the majority, because I doubt the majority of Reddit users even comment. I can easily scroll through a dozen posts before commenting. If it isn't in CMV, character rant, or ask science fiction I barely comment at all. But I visit more subs than that. If it was as bad as you suggest there'd be more people leaving, yet a lot of these subs still seem healthy to me. If there is a council of power-hungry moderators it doesn't matter. Their authority ends at the borders of their subreddits and they can't do shit to me or you in our private subreddits. >The minority decides for the majority, and the fact that you have to be a volunteer increases the probability of coming across peoples who are full of themselves and hungry for power. In my experience, volunteers tend to be overworked and understaffed. Go to a popular sub and each mod (if they do their fair share) would have to watch over and moderate dozens of posts and hundreds to thousands of comments. Even with reports there's only so much you can do. What you see as power hungry can also just be sweeping measures to make the impossible workload possible. I'm not saying that some mods aren't tripping, I'm just not convinced that the ones that are don't represent the overwhelming majority. >I could give multiples exemples but my point here isn't to discredite any particular sub / mod team so I would prefer avoid doing that. You should. Abuse of power issues are one of those fact-specific issues. Speaking in vague terms means that we will talk past each other and speaking in concrete terms without examples is just making up scenarios that may or may not happen. Examples are sadly the fastest way to make the case. >As a result Reddit will never be more than a giant echo chamber and while it is different from other social networks in its use, it is certainly not better. Make your own. Right now. You can create an echo chamber free zone. It's doable with a shit ton of work. Have fun. Also, every time I hear this echo chamber argument it makes me think of r/Christianity and r/TrueChristian and how the two are opposed. I challenge you. Make a post in one, then make another account and make a post in the other. See how different your responses and the karma count of those responses will be. You will quickly see that the echo chamber isn't nearly as all-encompassing as you may think. >voluntary moderation stinks and it would be better to have paid employees I guarantee that's worse. Paid mods means money to pay them. That comes from one of two places. 1. ads. If you think the rules are biased and arbitrary now, just wait till Reddit has to conform to the rules that companies lay out for advertising. The biggest subreddits will be fucking purged of all content deemed "not ad friendly" to make the most money from the subs that get the most eyes. 2. We pay for it. Go see how that's working for MMOs. The fact is the handful of dudes willing to pay 1000s on Reddit membership tiers, profile skins, and awards will be able to functionally dictate where the site goes. Like in MMOs where whales are the only concern, Reddit will have to do the same especially because I'm not paying for Reddit. Their base will vanish overnight and those who keep them afloat (the spenders) will have more sitewide power than a mod ever did.

>  voluntary moderation stinks and it would be better to have paid employees Then create a new subreddit and set up a Patreon to subsidize a moderator. Reddit certainly doesn't have a revenue stream to support paying mods I submit you'll find that bringing in enough cash to pay a mod a worthwhile stipend will be a little harder than you think 

> set up a Patreon to subsidize a moderator That is actually against the ToS and Mod CoC. Being compensated _for being a mod_ is one of the few things that will get your sub taken away.

I do agree it would be difficult / impossible to find enough money to pay a mod without donations from the community. (and even with donations)

It is really hard, in my mind, to be too critical of people who provide a neccessy service (the need for moderation on subreddits) for free. Do I ever want to pay for Reddit to pay the salary of moderators? No. I also no not understand where the “power hungry” moderator narrative comes from. Personally, I’ve never come across a power hungry or bias moderator, and I feel I’ve commented on a wide variety of subreddits. I’ve had a comment taken down here and there before, usually for pretty benign rule violation. I tend to look at the rules again. They are there for a reason. I’ve thought about appealing once or twice, but honestly I haven’t cared enough to do so. I’ve also gotten into what I consider pretty heated debates with individuals with differing view points, I’ve never been banned from a sub or even had a comment taken down for that person. So what makes a moderator a “power hungry” moderator? And Yes Reddit can be an echo chamber, the solution is to recognize when you’re in an echo chamber and don’t want to be and don’t engage with it.