Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

18
  • 46
    This is not just "not a good start". It's the opposite of what we're requiring. This only reinforces the strike.
    – Israel is evil
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 14:30
  • 33
    "These unnecessary suspensions and their outsize impact on new users run counter to our mission and have a negative impact on our community." This is simply untrue. We are the community, and we are sending SE a message. They don't get to put words in our mouths. Accept the words we're giving, instead.
    – Israel is evil
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 14:31
  • 9
    also, the CEO here is using private communications with the mods, that's just so completely wrong that I'm kind of amazed at it
    – Lamak
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 14:33
  • 31
    Zoe (who was interviewed by Dev Class) claims that the 11% was accurate at the time, but the percentage on Stack Overflow in specific is much higher now: 15/27 (according to the list of moderators on Stack Overflow) makes 55% of Stack Overflow elected moderators on strike.
    – E_net4
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 14:34
  • 78
    "Usage of these tools correlated to a dramatic upswing in suspensions of users with little or no prior content contributions; " -- because both correlate to the rise of people posting ChatGPT spam. It's not rocket science. And correlation is not causation, obviously.
    – David Roberts
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 14:34
  • 5
    @E_net4isonstrike I didn't make a claim about 11% being accurate or not. Even if it's a small fraction of total moderators, it's the most active moderators on the most active sites. It's also some of the most active curators on the most active sites. It's going to be a huge strain to have these people not participating.
    – Thomas Owens
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 14:38
  • 1
    @ThomasOwens Sure, I wasn't implying that you stood by this percentage, just added some more context. By the way, network-wide it has already reached 14%.
    – E_net4
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 14:40
  • 4
    An unfortunate comment but an unsurprising one. A company's natural reaction to a strike is to discount the threat. But there's a reason we're actually doing this and not just talking about it: Because the longer we hold out, the more they have to accept that those of us making a point here are a vital and difficult-to-replace part of the ecosystem.
    – Silvio Mayolo
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 14:40
  • 16
    @E_net4isonstrike Minor clarification: 11% was correct network-wide at the time, but not on SO in particular. Note how the CEO fails to call it the Stack Exchange network, but says "Stack Overflow network" (not just Stack Overflow). If it's specifically SO, then yes, 11% is a blatant lie. SO (the site) has had >50% sign the open letter since at least yesterday. However, this morning, 11% network-wide would've been approximately correct. It's currently at 14%+
    – Zoe - Save the data dump
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 14:47
  • 81
    On Academia.SE, the percentage of striking moderators is 100%. One of us already resigned due to the policy and the manner it was passed down. The policy is against academic ethics of attribution and honesty, and potentially dangerous to many of the askers on our site who are looking for professional guidance from humans with experience in Academia, as they confront conflicts that will determine the course of their careers.
    – Bryan Krause
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 15:13
  • 5
    @Trilarion A lot of the heuristics mods used, including our assessments of various detectors, was in mod only spaces to prevent people from being able to make the most minimal of changes to avoid detection. We don't discuss other moderator tools or techniques in public for similar reasons.
    – Thomas Owens
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 15:30
  • 27
    @Trilarion The amount of AI content was initially quite high, especially on SO; then, in consultation with staff, moderators took away the "carrot" for posting AI content: by deleting such content and suspending accounts when necessary, we made it so the value of posting AI-generated content here was low, which reduced submissions of that content. The same concept applies to all moderation: you aren't just acting on certain content, but discouraging it in the first place.
    – Bryan Krause
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 15:41
  • 7
    Really, it makes the CEO's claim that it is suspensions for AI content that have driven people away quite foolish, because the number affected is so small, while emphasizing the importance of moderating this content in the first place: it's what keeps the amount of AI content manageable.
    – Bryan Krause
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 15:43
  • 11
    the lack of transparency is alone enough to justify the strike anyway.
    – Stargateur
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 16:28
  • 7
    "a day of review that starts on a holiday in the US, Canada, UK, and other countries doesn't seem to be consistent with the spirit of the agreement" Especially when said day of "review" is after the policy is effective, which occurred simultaneously with it being given to moderators for said "review". The moderator agreement requires a "preview for review"; this was not that, in either letter or spirit.
    – Ryan M
    Commented Jun 6, 2023 at 0:36