• SheeEttin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    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
      4
      ·
      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
        4
        ·
        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).

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

        but asking for back pay is a stretch

        I don’t think anyone’s denying that. Lawsuits in the US always follow a “throw everything at the wall” approach because there’s no downsides to it. The actual worst case for including it is that particular claim gets rejected and the rest of the suit continues.