• imnotgooz@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            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).

      • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        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.

      • JasSmith@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • kru@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

      • imnotgooz@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • Melpomene@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Ulu-Mulu-no-die@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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

  • conderoga@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    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.

  • ram@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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.