
The Aol Chat Room Monitor Revolt (2014) - wcummings
http://priceonomics.com/the-aol-chat-room-monitor-revolt/
======
JanneVee
This is partly what is happening. Reading in out of the loop subreddit the
trigger is Victoria but the problem is different. The one I see as one of the
biggest problems is. The unpaid volunteers aren't given the tools necessary to
handle moderation of subreddits by reddit corporate. The tools moderators use
comes from third parties and volunteers. [0] As an outsider I have understand
why they are angry, trying to create safe spaces by sweeping(and inconsistent)
bans of subreddits but not giving the tools to moderators to keep their
subreddits clean.

[0][https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3bxduw/why_wa...](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3bxduw/why_was_riama_along_with_a_number_of_other_large/)

~~~
NoMoreNicksLeft
I'm not sure the reddit community (either moderators specifically, or
redditors in general) are intelligent enough to know what tools they need.

I once tried to suggest a new tool, and was attacked there for 3 weeks after
on subredditdrama for requesting such a tool.

My crime? Suggesting that moderators be able to ban everyone who (wrongly)
upvotes an offtopic post. This would allow them to steer things back on topic,
by punishing those who refuse to stay on topic.

~~~
Karunamon
_Suggesting that moderators be able to ban everyone who (wrongly) upvotes an
offtopic post_

Reddit already has a problem with moderator abuse and nontransparency, and you
want to give them the ability to ban people based on their votes? The
literally only control that a user has over content?

I can see why you were "attacked". That is an _awful_ idea.

~~~
chc
I don't know, in my experience, Reddit is much more rife with low-quality
posting and bandwagoning than moderator abuse. It happens on rare occasions,
but most accusations of moderator abuse I've seen have turned out to be
nothing more than some first-world anarchists trying to stick it to the man
and a bunch of other people bandwagoning on. Meanwhile, most subreddits with
more than 10k posters are just awful because it's so hard for moderators to
actually moderate the community (see, for example, all the true* subreddits
that have sprung up just to create less popular versions of popular subs).

~~~
mcuk2k
I read a few subreddits that might be considered outsiders. I get the
impression that Reddit is slowly being subverted. Subverted by the sort of
people that might have a strong voice on Tumblr and Twitter. Slowly censoring
anything that's undesirable to their world view.

~~~
mingus68040
Being "subverted" by a different community would be the best possible outcome
for reddit. It's a proud soapbox for white supremacists and misogynists to
virulently spread hatred under the guise of "free speech". If this
"community", seemingly comprised entirely of self-entitled white men in their
20s, were scattered to the winds tomorrow, the world would be a better place.

~~~
shubb
I don't disagree but there is a beautiful irony to posting that here.

------
gesman
Also - lets not forget that chat room monitors were willing to put up with the
AOL TOS, hours and conditions for one good reason:

that sweet feeling of power to kick and ban other people (and likely to brag
about it to their buddies).

~~~
jseliger
_that sweet feeling of power to kick and ban other people (and likely to brag
about it to their buddies)._

Yes: I wrote about that problem here: [http://jakeseliger.com/2015/03/16/the-
moderator-problem-how-...](http://jakeseliger.com/2015/03/16/the-moderator-
problem-how-reddit-and-related-news-sites-decline/) and there is some HN
discussion here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9217628](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9217628).

I don't really see a way around these problems: Paying people would be too
expensive for sites like Reddit, and "volunteers" suffer from adverse
selection.

------
pbhjpbhj
>As described, Reddit is an interesting example where people voluntarily fill
the same community leader role that Aol’s volunteers did, although they do so
with fewer restrictions and more agency. //

Presumably the current Reddit debacle is the stimulation for posting this now.
The article mentions Buzzfeed and Youtube models too. Quite interesting.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
I had to look up the current reddit debacle:

[http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-
tech/new...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-
tech/news/reddit-in-revolt-moderators-shut-down-popular-parts-of-the-website-
in-solidarity-with-fired-friend-10363099.html)

I'm still not sure what's going on, though.

~~~
yk
As far as I understand, reddit did introduce a new search function yesterday,
which pissed off mods of several subreddits. [1] Additionally they fired(?) an
employee who acted as a interface between the r/IAmA mods and the people who
do amAs [2], who are usually not redditors. So the mods of r/IamA set there
sub to private. That means that only invited users can see the sub. From there
quite a few other mods did declare their frustration with reddits
communication, their solidarity with either the IAmA mods or Victoria and
various other grievances. And either set their subs to private or at least
declared their solidarity. And by now half of reddit is private and the other
half rages agains the admins. ( Reddits front page, that is the ~20 highest
upvoted posts on the site, are uniformly against reddit.) For a bit more
details see [3].

[1]
[https://pay.reddit.com/r/self/comments/3bvkf0/stop_throwing_...](https://pay.reddit.com/r/self/comments/3bvkf0/stop_throwing_beer_cans_on_my_lawn_while_im/)

[2] ask me Anything, basically the community interviews someone interesting.

[3]
[https://pay.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3bxduw/why_wa...](https://pay.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3bxduw/why_was_riama_along_with_a_number_of_other_large/)

~~~
reagency
1 is a long confusing extended metaphor, not an explanation of the search
issue.

~~~
yk
Yes, but it is the reaction of the search desaster by a guy who moderates
almost 200 subs. So I included it as a primary source to show the frustration
of the mods.

------
whoopdedo
I see a significant difference between AOL and Reddit. AOL selected the
monitors and had the power to remove their privileges. That's what made them
essentially employees. Reddit moderators are mostly self-regulated. Even in
the large subs new moderators are chosen by other moderators and rarely is a
moderator of a sub involuntarily removed, except if they have abandoned the
sub or violated the terms of service. I can see how Reddit is not obligated to
pay them because they volunteer by their own will and not at Reddit's
discretion.

------
logn
Given the market cap of Facebook is $245 billion and it has 1.44 billion
active users, then each user is $170 (170 == 245/1.44). If each user generates
$1 for Facebook each quarter, that's $4/yr which is an annual return of 2.3%
(2.3 == 4/170).

I'm not sure where I stand on calling users "sharecroppers". Seems a little
unreasonable. But the economics of it are interesting and concerning.

~~~
adventured
With 1.44 billion monthly actives, and going with the per user averaging, it
comes out to ~$2.45 per user per quarter (as of the most recent quarter; it's
safe to assume that will continue to increase for now).

They're generating closer to $10 per year for Facebook. Your annual sales take
jumps to 5.9%. A year from now that will probably be closer to 7%. PE ratios
usually compress with time due to slowing growth. I would be comfortable
predicting that Facebook will eventually get this calculation up to 15%+.
Their PE ratio right now is 80, which is producing a massively warped
calculation on the return %, as that PE compresses heavily over the next ten
years, their return per user will skyrocket.

If their PE ratio were a more sane 40 right now, this number would already be
at ~12%. Double their annual income to $6 billion and their sales to $30
billion over a few years, drop their PE to 35 ($210b market cap), boost their
user base to 2 billion, and it jumps to 14%. A very plausible outcome four
years out. This is all calculated off of sales of course, not income.

------
mendelk
For those "out of the loop", this was probably posted in relation to this:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9822580](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9822580)

------
bluedino
What's the problem with letting the community work 'for free'? They are
receiving benefits, even if non-monetary. Peer recognition, control, power...

If foobar.com's forums asks me to an un-paid moderator and I gladly comply, I
have no right to decide 6 months down the road that I shouldn't have been
doing that work for free and deserve payment for it.

~~~
saint_fiasco
Work laws are weird like that. There are certain things you can't consent to
even if you really want to.

For example, you can't agree to work for less than minimum wage, you can't
agree to work for free to get rid of a debt, you can't agree to have sex with
someone in exchange for money.

These things apply even if you voluntarily sign a contract saying you consent.

~~~
jacquesm
It's all relative depending on your location any or all of those could be
legal.

~~~
brazzlemobile
I think everyone understands that different places have different laws.

------
pcunite
Great article. It was 1997 I believe and my dad and I sent each other a
message over AOL instant messenger for the first time. It felt like magic to
communicate that way. The phone was few feet away but this seemed futuristic
and awe inspiring.

------
nness
Lets say, theoretically, that a similar ruling were found for some of the
Reddit moderators. Wouldn't it be in Reddit's best interest to immediately
terminate their employment and find a way to bring in more cost-effective
moderators?

------
larcher
Having trouble getting past the author's failure to distinguish between the
web and the Internet... :-P

~~~
MichaelCrawford
I understand that it is common for facebook users to think that facebook is
the internet.

Many do not understand that email has anything to do with the internet.

I was in a psyciatric hospital when I pointed out to the staff that I needed
to renew my domain names. They told me I could not do that so I asserted my
right to manage my own fincial affairs, as is the law. the staff of that
particular hospital know about that law so they will arrange for you to pay
rent and the like.

But they regarded my talk of domain names, registrars and renewals as
delusionals. Then I started screaming and crying "But I am a webmaster!" You
are going to throw me out on the streets."

"We'll see."

This went on for a few days then "WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN!"

The next day one of the staff told me that a fellow patient suggested he put
my name into Google.

He apologized, then said "Sometimes I forget why I work here."

Then he set me up on a staff computer so I could renew.

Lots of mental hospitals have wifi or desktops.

Others have no eay to contact the outside world at all.

------
scholia
Good point ;-)

------
excitom
Kind of off topic, but the "Aol" branding has always grated on me. It's an
acronym, AOL, not a word.

~~~
osconfused
Originally, yes it was an acronym, then they officially changed it to a word
in 2006.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL)

~~~
omegaham
Yep, just like KFC is no longer "Kentucky Fried Chicken" \- it's just KFC.

~~~
x43b
"Yep, just like KFC is no longer "Kentucky Fried Chicken" \- it's just KFC."

The very first words at KFC.com are "Kentucky Fried Chicken"

Doing a text search on the home page says Kentucky shows up two more times.

~~~
hammock
From 1991 to 2006, it was just KFC.
[http://www.snopes.com/lost/kfc.asp](http://www.snopes.com/lost/kfc.asp)

~~~
dredmorbius
NB: that Snopes page is part of its The Repository Of Lost Legends (TROLL)
section, a cautionary lesson in false authority:

[http://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp](http://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp)

(And yes, I got sucked into the "Kentucky trademark" story too.)

While Kentucky Fried Chicken _did_ change its name, it wasn't for the reasons
given in that account.

~~~
hammock
Thanks for that. I did already know firsthand that KFC had changed its name
for a time. I found a source (Snopes) that confirmed it. Internally I was
skeptical of the reasoning that was provided (since it conflicted with what I
knew from more reliable sources), but the actual reasoning was tangential to
my point

