Want to get yall’s feedback on community squatting.
There are a good amount of communities with zero posts, comments, etc, as well as some users who have created communities but aren’t trying to grow them or even post to them in any way.
I’d rather have the creators of communities be someone who’s at least contributing to them.
Some options are, occasionally deleting communities with little to no activity, or limiting modship to a small number of communities.
Using the level of activity in a community as a guage for someone’s fitness to moderate seems like a bad idea. There’s no connection there.
Squatting is a good thing - it counters bias
It’s a much bigger problem to find non-biased moderators (squatting or not). If PepsiCo creates and moderates c/pepsi, it invites corruption because obviously PepsiCo will censor posts critical of Pepsi. Squatters create several forums, and thus tend not to be biased. E.g. say a squatter creates c/pepsi, c/coke, c/drpepper, and c/microsoft. They are likely not affiliated with those companies, and can serve as a less biased moderator than the representatives of those companies who would like to control the narrative to favor their profit-driven bias.
It’s less of a squatter, more of an absentee landlord type issue.
I read the op’s post as more a complain about community name parking rather than squatting.