Then read the article and not just the headline. There are various examples of why that’s happening.
There’s a canning recipe that’s been allowed to stay up despite the potential to make people sick. A moderator with zero 3D-printing experience joined as a “joke” to replace a mod whose expertise included identifying functional gun printing recipes. A new home automation moderator insists expert knowledge is unnecessary in a subreddit where bad advice can lead to electrocution or compromised cybersecurity.
Your examples are just funny, but when (good) journalists write “could”, it means that they have analyzed something and they are predicting its outcome based on the data they have collected. It’s not like they’re just making stuff up
_number8_@lemmy.world 1 year ago
fuck reddit; isn’t this just what voting is for? i don’t want mods at all, ideally, i want to see what other people posted without anyone getting authority to say ‘achshully’
Kachilde@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Clearly competent moderators have some sort of effect, or these stories would not exist. If self-moderation worked, then the dangerous canning post mentioned in the article wouldn’t have gained any traction.
Without competent moderation, the ability for users to manipulate or derail communities grows. A voting system is entirely subjective, and a bad or dangerous idea can set roots if enough unaware people give it the votes. I am aware that moderation is also subjective, but competent, knowledgeable mods can help guide a community, or protect it from targeted harassment.
Also, they’re the ones with no life who can devote their time to monitoring the community. Most people spend a few minutes at a time visiting a community. That’s not enough time to verify every post in the last 24 hours, and vote for them all accordingly (depending on the size of the community of course),