Quadruple moderation is killing Lemmy. It’s a gift to Reddit

There’s a rule about online communities I want people here to understand: the 90-9-1 rule.

Roughly 90% lurk, 9% comment, and 1% create.

Additionally - lemmy monthly active users is stangant at about 35k monthly active and not improving:
https://lemmy.fediverse.observer/stats

When I first got to Lemmy, I had trouble finding enough content I was interested in even commenting on. So I figured: why complain about the lack of content when one can start posting it myself?

That’s why I post so much.

If people don’t post, most Lemmy communities simply don’t have enough creators to sustain themselves. You need posts before lurkers can lurk, commenters can comment, and some of those people eventually become creators themselves.

I’m not posting just to flood Lemmy. I’m trying to help solve one of Lemmy’s biggest problems: not enough content creators.

And frankly, doing that has been a nightmare.

Lemmy has a quadruple-moderation problem

Every active content creator has to survive four layers:

  1. Community moderators can remove your posts or ban you from the community.
  2. Your home-instance admins can ban your entire account.
  3. Receiving-instance admins can block/ban you for everyone on their instance, even though you don’t belong to it.
  4. Public moderation history means those decisions follow you. One moderator’s decision can influence another and snowball into more moderation.

For prolific content creators, that’s brutal.

I’ve had multiple accounts banned over one or two posts that somebody didn’t like. Months of posting, comments, engagement and contributions can effectively disappear from a community because of a couple of moderation decisions.

And the more you contribute, the worse the odds become. If you make hundreds or thousands of posts, eventually you’re going to post something that one moderator somewhere doesn’t like.

You don’t need one moderation team to tolerate you. You need multiple independent moderators and admins, across multiple servers, to remain aligned indefinitely.

There’s almost no cost to deleting a creator

This is another major difference from Reddit.

There is generally no financial investment in a Lemmy community’s content. A volunteer moderator can ban someone who contributed months of posts and comments and lose all of that person’s past and future contributions without losing revenue, salary or investment. Did you know all creator posts are wiped out from lemmy after account banned?

The creator paid the cost in time.

The community loses the content.

The users lose something to read and discuss.

And the moderator who pushed the button may personally lose essentially nothing.

So who benefits from making prolific content creation this difficult?

Because it certainly isn’t Lemmy.

And this creates an enormous attack surface

I genuinely have trouble believing that everyone complaining about prolific posters simply doesn’t understand this dynamic. At some point I have to question whether some of it is deliberate.

If I were Reddit and wanted to undermine a federated competitor, this is exactly where I’d attack it: its content creators.

You don’t need to hack Lemmy. You don’t need to DDoS instances. You don’t need to take anything offline.

Lemmy already provides the mechanism.

Report prolific contributors. Call their posting “spam.” accuse them of being bots. Point moderators toward their public moderation histories. Get one account banned somewhere, then let that decision influence moderators elsewhere.

Eventually the creator gets tired of fighting and leaves.

I’m not claiming I have proof Reddit is doing this. I’m saying Lemmy’s architecture makes this kind of subversion ridiculously easy, and Reddit would be an obvious beneficiary.

Reddit doesn’t have this same federated quadruple-jeopardy problem. You’re primarily dealing with the moderation of the subreddit you’re contributing to.

Lemmy desperately needs more people creating content, yet its moderation structure makes life progressively harder for the people who create the most of it.

At some point we should be asking:

Who actually benefits from that?

A plea to admins: protect your creators ban reddit agents instead

Before banning someone, look at who is contributing and who is reporting.

If an account with zero posts in years reports someone who has contributed hundreds of posts, don’t treat those two users as equally valuable to the health of the community.

That doesn’t put creators above the rules. Remove bad posts. Warn people. Moderate proportionally.

But stop throwing away months of content and future contributions over one or two posts someone disliked.

Creating content takes time. Reporting takes seconds.

Protect the people actually building your communities.

edit: I am reposting from reddit - there is no rules against that. its actually great thing for majority of lemmy users!

This reposting tool is open source - i’ve never been hiding the fact im reposting from reddit.
people get only high quality pre-dozed, pre-moderated content.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lemmy-deep-lighthouse/

I think more people should be using similar tools and populate lemmy with content. - htis is the only way to move that 35k mau number and creat conditions for more OC on lemmy

edit 2 " but we dont want content" argument.

The fuck you dont. who the fuck is we?

And this is why I don’t buy the argument that the people still here represent what users want.

Look at the numbers.

  • Fediverse: ~14 million registered, ~1.17 million MAU.
  • Lemmy: ~756,000 registered, ~35,000 MAU.

Lemmy has had three quarters of a million accounts created and only about 4.6% of that number is active monthly.

Obviously that doesn’t mean 95% were all regular users who quit. But it does tell us something important: the people currently active are a tiny, self-selected fraction of everyone who has tried this platform.

So when 30 existing users say “WE don’t want more content,” you’re hearing from the people the current system successfully retained. You’re not hearing from the enormous number of people who tried Lemmy and aren’t here anymore.

Maybe instead of assuming the remaining users have figured out what Lemmy should be, we should be asking why so many people tried it and didn’t stick around.

  • velma@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 days ago

    I mostly agree with your post, but come on. If it’s OC, it should be credited appropriately.

    I pull some stuff from Reddit to repost, but I always pull from the source and not Reddit itself. Lemmy doesn’t need to be an exact clone of Reddit to succeed. We should be crediting creators where possible.

    • sanitation@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      2 days ago

      If it’s OC, it should be credited appropriately.

      see Velma- problem is people complain if I put links back to reddit. (I used to do that)
      many communities dont want to credit reddit thats why I stopped doing that.

      lemmy has double identity issue - nobody can agree on one pattern.

      • velma@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        Ignore people complaining is the best advice I can give on Lemmy after being here for a while.

        Instead of trying to post in communities with shit-ass mods (looking at you JonsJava), find communities that have more reasonable mods and build up there. You have to find the people that appreciate your posts which is frustrating sometimes, but so much better than trying to deal with mods that love the smell of their own farts.

        • sanitation@lemmy.todayOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          I think it should be done per community. if community wants to credit reddit with a link - I will absolutely comply.

      • MousePotatoDoesStuff@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        It would probably help if your AI can check if a post is labeled as OC (I guess a simple local language model should be enough for something this trivial, maybe some edge case detection for manual review) and re-label it as a repost.

        • sanitation@lemmy.todayOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          This is literally the first time anyone has raised the OC labeling issue with me. And yes, that’s easy to fix. I can add a check for OC labels and either reject those posts or correctly mark them as reposts.

          This is exactly the kind of feedback I’d rather get: identify a concrete problem and I’ll fix the tooling, instead of jumping straight to “ban the account.”

          • MousePotatoDoesStuff@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            I agree. That said, I’d imagine it would be easier to start new communities - and probably a new instance to host said communities - than to change things by complaining here. That’s the part of what makes the Fediverse great, after all.