- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
The terms of service for reddit are based on California law. Based on liberal Laws of California, I would venture to guess that there is some grounds for back pay. I was wondering about this with all the discussion around volunteer moderators.
Similar to Uber drivers, the test for independent contractors is pretty difficult to meet in California nowadays. So I believe there is a solid case (cough class action cough). Fuck reddit. They deserve all the backlash and a mod class action for backpay would be legendary.
I don’t understand how mods could argue they deserve backpay. They are volunteers, are we saying that all volunteers can sue for backpay?
It’s more about the principle. He’s saying that they can’t provide reddit for free, they’re not a charity. But with the same logic, should mods work for free, since they’re also not a charity?
Pretty sure the courts will view volunteer work that enriches a non profit very differently from “volunteer” work that enriches a for profit enterprise.
they don’t have a contract, they’re screwed.
This will go nowhere, however if it were to try to go somewhere, Mods would need to enter legally binding agreements to abide by union rules.
That meaning, if the union votes to private your stuff, to shut down scripts, etc, you can be held liable to some extent or another.
Right now, these protests are largely people pussyfooting, jumping in, and when the water gets a little hot, screaming “oh no” and hopping out. This cannot happen if you want to effectively collectively bargain. Scabs cannot be amongst those united. There can be no question on loyalties.
It’s not gonna happen, but it’d be hella interesting if it did.
Realistically, I don’t think this will go anywhere. While Reddit’s use of free moderators to do the bulk of the work might raise eyebrows, they’ve been very clear about the fact that moderation is a volunteer effort, rewarded with “status” as a moderator and greater control of the communities moderated.
However…
Going forward, Reddit moderators should absolutely collectively bargain for pay, refusing to moderate unless Reddit pays them fairly for their efforts. I think I saw somewhere that the average moderator spends around 20 hours a week moderating (could be remembering wrong) so asking for equitable pay would be a way to deprive Reddit of millions of dollars of unpaid labor. Worst that happens there for the fediverse is that they agree, though.
refusing to moderate unless Reddit pays them fairly for their efforts
What will really happen: new mods will be put in their place instead, willing to do the dirty work for free because they don’t get the protest. They will probably be worse than the people they replaced and they will not defend their communities against the further changes the website will bring. This will kill Reddit as we know it, but it won’t happen overnight, it will take months or even years, every community slowly draining away its goodwill while users organize new communities elsewhere, be it Lemmy or wherever else. At that point, Reddit will become a news aggregator or a boring social media websites closer to tiktok than it is to the discussion centered place it is now. And we won’t be there to really see it under that new guise, just like I had to check to see that digg.com has now become a sad flipboard clone.
And that’s a perfectly acceptable outcome! If Reddit dies like Digg, Tumblr, and now Twitter have done, then I’m okay with that and I imagine that most of us here are too. If Reddit’s new mods are low quality, then illegal content will become more prevalent and they’ll risk, at the very least, public censure for their enabling of [insert illegal stuff here.] But you’re right… Reddit is not likely to die overnight. It’ll take time measured in years.
It’s funny because now Digg.com artcles might get 15 comments. I remember when it was an actual social media site and not just another blog. 😆
Not a bad idea. Even in the case it doesn’t have a solid legal ground (I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know), I believe it’s still a good way to scare off investors and show what happens when you s*hit too much on your own free labor.
Apparently last year spez (or reddit admins) sent out a message to mods saying they are expected to work X number of hours a week.
A volunteer or contractor chooses their own hours. Specifying they must work a certain number of hours per week or be removed sure makes them look like employees under the law.
But I haven’t seen that message so I don’t know all the details.
That being said I don’t know why so many mods don’t want to give up their currently unpaid position when reddit is hellbent on making it more difficult for them. Let reddit figure it out and take your community elsewhere.
I predict that going precisely nowhere. Mods are volunteers and, as such, do not have the rights of employees. The best thing they can do is simply quit.
Unfortunately I’m sure there are enough anti-union reddit fans that would be more than happy to replace all the mods looking to unionize.
I want to see Reddit in legal trouble over this catastrophe as much as the next person, but I don’t think this poses any new problems for Reddit. The mods that are protesting are doing what hurts Reddit most already, and if they go too far they’ll be unceremoniously removed.
20 years ago in Hallissey et al v. America Online, Inc., AOL ended up settling for $15 million for 2000 “volunteers”. It’s not a perfect situation match, but there is some precedent (not in the legal sense, having been a settlement).
Considering how they couldn’t keep up the protest going because of threats of removal as moderators, I highly doubt they will achieve anything. People apparently need Reddit and they’ll do whatever to have it no matter the cost.
If they were bound to a union it could be different, but that’d require people be willing to enter a union contract in return for collective bargaining power.
Good luck with that lol
