this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2023
74 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

34830 readers
18 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml
74
Reddit mods discuss forming a union and suing for back pay (old.reddit.com)
submitted 1 year ago by JRepin@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.ml
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] imnotgooz@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] TestAcctPlsIgnore@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't understand how mods could argue they deserve backpay. They are volunteers, are we saying that all volunteers can sue for backpay?

[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Pretty sure the courts will view volunteer work that enriches a non profit very differently from "volunteer" work that enriches a for profit enterprise.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] _finger_@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, they shouldn’t. When subs reach a certain member threshold modding becomes a job for many. Mods should absolutely form a union, but asking for back pay is a stretch. What they should do is asked to be paid moving forward stating that profiting off the backs of volunteers is no longer acceptable not only because Reddit has made modding much harder by giving third party apps the finger, but also because the mods should in theory value their spare time. Another thing is that people posting free content to Reddit without reimbursement should be viewed as an atrocity, even YouTube reimburses content creators once the content gets a certain amount of views.

[–] BuddhaBeettle@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Negociation 101: ask for more than you actually expect to get (within reason, you don't want people to think you are a joke).
They ask for backpay not really expecting for backpay, just to give them wiggle room to settle in court for better rights from that moment on.
Last and only time I had to sue someone (and won) my lawyer told me what the usual result of cases like mine is, then we asked for that and like, 20% extra. Then on the mediation we "negociated" for the amount we were really expecting to get.
(This is all personal speculation, Im not a mod, clearing that up just in case).

[–] GankTopPlz@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

they don't have a contract, they're screwed.

[–] JasSmith@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

California has many of laws on the books which grandfather workers under various statutes of de facto employment. Even contracts can be voided. No contract is necessary for an employment relationship to exist.

[–] GankTopPlz@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

and reddit has it in their TOS that no one who is a mod is an employee of reddit.

[–] kru@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a point in favor of reddit, but a small one. As my company's labor lawyer enjoys saying, "You can't contract around the law." Meaning, an agreement can be nullified by a court that finds the agreement is in violation of a law.

[–] GankTopPlz@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right, but you also can't create a work agreement where one was explicitly denied. It's like mowing your neighbors lawn then asking them to pay you, but they told you they wouldn't pay you if you did it before you started. It's the same with the 3rd party app devs too. While I think reddits actions are insane and detrimental to the health of the site, they are fully in their right to deny those devs access to their API and their site as a whole.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You sorta can. The difference in your scenario is that your neighbor doesn't need you to mow their lawn, but Reddit requires moderators in order for the business of Reddit to function.

Here is a guide published by the state of California about whether someone should qualify as an employee of a company. Read through the first couple pages of checklists and ask yourself if a moderator fits the criteria they're looking for.

For the first 3 questions, a "Yes" answer is an indictator that the person is an employee.

  1. Do you instruct or supervise the person while he or she is working?
  • I would say that likely counts as a yes, because moderators have a code of conduct which is mandated by Reddit, and they must follow it in order to keep their jobs.
  1. Can the worker quit or be discharged (fired) at any time?
  • Reddit does not have protections in place for moderators, who can be removed from their positions at any time. Likewise, moderators can walk from their job at any time.
  1. Is the work being performed part of your regular business?
  • This is definitely a yes, because Reddit relies on subreddits for its business, and subreddits require moderators.

For the next 3 questions, a "No" answer indicates that the person is an employee and not an independent contractor.

  1. Does the worker have a separately established business?
  • This is a bit of a gray area. For the majority of moderators, this would be a no at surface value, but some subreddits that concern a specific product/company sometimes have representatives from that company on the mod team. However another criteria of this category is that moderators have the ability to add/remove other moderators at their discretion, which is an indicator that they qualify as independent contractors and not employees. Should this go to trial, this will be an item that is argued.
  1. Is the worker free to make business decisions which affect his or her ability to profit from the work?
  • This would likely be a no for most moderators. To expand further, one of the example criteria is whether the individual is free to utilize their own tools/resources to do their work, and Reddit limiting API access is specifically one example of this not being the case. But if the subreddit is a front for a business (as in, the subreddit's primary purpose is to sell/support a paid product or service), it likely would not qualify.
  1. Does the individual have a substantial investment in their job which would subject him or her to a financial risk of loss?
  • Similar to the above, I think this would be a no for most moderators. Reddit controls the platform and dictates what resources moderators are/aren't allowed to utilize when doing their jobs, so there is no independent financial investment from the moderators that is at risk.

It's not cut-and-dry, and I think that's what might make this difficult to take to court, but the argument certainly exists and the case could at least result in better terms for how Reddit must work with their moderators.

[–] GankTopPlz@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Reddit requires moderators in order for the business of Reddit to function.

no they dont. they literally have a system to democratically promote or suppress posts.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, I mean Reddit runs entirely on subreddits for its business, and the infrastructure requires a moderator to exist to create them.

[–] GankTopPlz@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Reddit could operate without subreddit moderators. The main reason mods exist is to remove abusive users and bots, both of witch could be handled by the vote system.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think Reddit could operate without moderators. On a technical level, sure it's possible, but as a business they would not be able to operate. If the content didn't have a reputation of being vibrant, interesting, and reliable, no one would use the site and they'd have no income. Reddit's business is only possible with moderators there to cultivate their communities and keep things civil.

[–] GankTopPlz@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

facebook, twitter, and tumbler all got along without community moderation, i don't see how reddit would actually be any different. every subreddit is a glorified hashtag in the grand scheme of things.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

The three companies you named all have employees or contractors who are paid by the company to work as moderators (well, Twitter used to, pre-Musk).

Facebook

Tumblr (Scroll down to the section where they discuss moderation)

Twitter

[–] 4am@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It may surprise you to learn that if an EULA/TOS and an actual law conflict, then the law wins.

Reddit can’t say “nuh-uh doesn’t count if you use our site!” anymore than someone can sign a contract saying it’s ok for you to murder them.

So the real question is do any of these laws actually allow for the conditions set forth by Reddit to be considered employment?

[–] imnotgooz@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don’t need a contract to sue someone in California. There are labor laws meant to cover situations that are inequitable or unfair. In my mind, having mods do all this work for the benefit of reddit (eg. Free labor) is unfair and seemingly rises to a level that should be investigated.

[–] GankTopPlz@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

yeah, but you need one to win.

[–] ulu_mulu@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] pizza_rolls@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] XanXic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's kind of where I think they'd have an "in" towards a valid stance. The fact reddit forces a decorum and the laws about how websites are or aren't responsible for their content because of moderation efforts. The fact they just replaced moderators because they broke the "moderator agreement" but are self appointed volunteers are conflicting stances. This on top of Reddit repeatedly saying they are their content but contribute none of it.

I doubt anything will come of it but making Reddit pay lawyers to theorize a defense is a good waste of their money at the very least

[–] Melpomene@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] xevizero@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Melpomene@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] s_s@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

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. 😆

[–] conderoga@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] FarceMultiplier@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

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).

[–] stu@lemmy.pit.ninja 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] aeternum@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

haha. i REALLY hope they do it.

[–] HidingCat@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

How'd they calculate how much is owed though? I've been through ups and downs when I did modding and it's not a consistent amount of time spent. And I don't think every mod would be eligible, would they? I'm sure some small niche sub that barely needs moderating would be very different from a large hot sub like r/news or r/politics.

[–] Haan@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Good luck with that lol

[–] ram@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] SuperSpecialNickname@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ram@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

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.