12

I recently learned that moderators have unrestricted access to users’ followed posts simply by viewing their profiles. It's worrying and seems odd, especially considering that saved posts and voting history are kept private by design.

Is this information necessary for moderators to perform their duties? If so, what specific moderation tasks require unrestricted access to followed posts data, and what insights can be gained from the list of followed posts that aren’t available through other data already available to mods?

Given that moderator access to sensitive private information like real names, email addresses, and IP addresses is logged to prevent abuse, why isn’t access to follow lists treated similarly if it's freely viewable by mods?

I know that moderators are restricted from having access to voting history to protect user privacy. In cases of suspected voting fraud, they must escalate the issue to Stack Exchange staff for investigation. This process ensures that there’s a valid reason before accessing a user’s voting history. SE staff have even declined a feature request to allow moderators to invalidate votes directly, emphasizing the importance of user privacy.

Why aren’t followed posts given the same level of privacy protection, where mods need to justify their request before gaining access?

This issue becomes particularly concerning on SE sites focusing on personal, academic, or professional topics like The Workplace SE, Law SE, Interpersonal Skills SE, MathOverflow, Academia SE, etc. Think about it: the set of topics a person is interested in, combined with their posts, profile information, IP address (which can estimate location), and email address, could potentially be enough for an abusive actor to identify or doxx them. It might even allow someone to pinpoint which institution or company they're studying or working at, even if the user hasn't explicitly shared this private information. It's worrying that access to follow lists isn't logged, unlike email and IP address access.

Given these privacy concerns, I would like to understand why moderators have unrestricted access to users’ followed posts. And why are followed posts data not protected in the same way as saved posts and other private data? It seems like there’s a disconnect between how different types of private user data are treated, and I’m curious to understand the reasoning behind it.

8
  • 4
    For the record, as a mod I'm not aware we ever asked for this. It was just enabled by default when the feature was launched.
    – Mast
    Commented Nov 4 at 7:25
  • 5
    @Mast I'm a mod and I didn't even realise we had access to that information in the first place. It's certainly not something I've ever needed to check, nor can I think of any circumstance in which I would need to check it.
    – F1Krazy
    Commented Nov 4 at 7:47
  • 2
    "In cases of suspected voting fraud, they must escalate the issue to Stack Exchange staff for investigation." > There is some moderator tooling for detecting voting fraud as well, there's no 'must' for moderators to escalate this to staff. If the mod-tooling says you're a sock committing voting fraud very clearly, moderators can take action without staff involvement.
    – Tinkeringbell Mod
    Commented Nov 4 at 9:03
  • 3
    The somehow creepy interaction you mentioned (and other similar ones I saw in the past) is already a reason mods should have no access to those info. As for WHY they have it... I assume it is a mix of "it is too much work to change it" and a "not worth it - no sensitive data" with a side flavor of "if you don't have anything to hide you shouldn't care" Commented Nov 4 at 9:27
  • 2
    FWIW, I would assume cough cough that for certain people following is highly correlate with activities that aren't meant to be accessible to mods, such as voting. Commented Nov 4 at 16:49
  • I notice this question is being downvoted. I'm genuinely curious whether this means that the downvoters believe moderator access to followed posts is necessary. If you think it is, could you explain which moderation tasks require this level of access? Commented Nov 5 at 2:01
  • This was requested in the initial announcement or at least the same question was raised: meta.stackexchange.com/a/382021/1099857 Commented Nov 5 at 2:37
  • 1
    @HenryEcker btw, your link is about Favorites/Bookmarks/Saves, not Follow. Commented Nov 7 at 10:52

1 Answer 1

-1

While I'm not thrilled about it either, I think I can understand the reasoning behind it.

The act of following a post means you want to get notifications about it, and nothing else. It doesn't mean you found it useful, or upvoted it, etc.

The act of Saving a post, on the other hand, means you find it interesting/useful and likely upvoted it as well. This is one step "higher" than "just" following.

So based on the above, SE considered Saves to be more private action than Following.

5
  • 2
    I actually follow posts for the same personal reasons I save them—they're interesting or useful topics I want to keep tabs on. What's unclear to me is why mods have access to this information at all, given they already have other tools at their disposal. Commented Nov 4 at 10:24
  • 2
    There are all kinds of use cases for ̶b̶o̶o̶k̶m̶a̶r̶k̶s̶ saves. Saving a post does not necessarily imply "interesting/useful", it might just say that a user wants to be able to find a certain posts again at some point in the future. Maybe the post needs editing? Maybe it needs vtc and one doesn't have any votes left that day ... Commented Nov 4 at 12:36
  • @samcarter true, but generally, the Saves expose info that is more "private", in my opinion, it's more complex than just following to get notifications. Commented Nov 4 at 13:12
  • 2
    I have saved posts before because I was out of deletion votes for the day but thought it deserved a deletion vote. I've also saved posts because I needed them for a Meta post which I was planning on finishing later. Finding a post useful is not the only reason to save a post.
    – Starship
    Commented Nov 4 at 16:46
  • 1
    That following has no deeper meaning may be true in general but not for individuals. The spark of this topic was a moderator double-checking the activity of a user after they revealed their following usage, after all. Likewise I have spoken on meta about how I use following during curation, and I have seen others make similar statements. It is very much possible to use following information to derive information that should not be accessible to moderators. Saves being more critical doesn’t mean following isn’t critical as well. Commented Nov 5 at 5:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .