I read something that explained that banning NSFW from the API would make it more difficult for mod tools meant to identify situations where someone who posted a lot of hardcore porn tried to post in a sub aimed at young or vulnerable users (I think r/teenagers was the example given). So it isn’t just about being able to access porn, but also about being able to identify potential problem users for certain subs.

No, I just bought Pro.

I can’t find it either. Updated and saw the option to buy the wallpapers but not the one to decline the refund.

Or Yammer 😆

r/Steam is cracking me up with their malicious compliance. Their front page right now is filled with posts about actual steam.

BORU also had wayyyyy too many karma farming duplicate content posts. And their 1-year post rule just encouraged people to go back 1 year and then copy and paste posts with a lot of upvotes just to farm more karma.

It was good to have updates and stories consolidated in one place, I know. It just enabled too much repetitive copying and pasting due to the karma it provided.

I thought you expressed yourself very clearly, and your English was perfect.

Even when there’s a specific prompt to send a private thank you message that gets sent to you via PM when you get the message telling you someone gilded you…it’s like nope, gotta make an edit instead!

I think he might just be burnt out and stressed right now. Being accused of making threats, being lied about publicly, and having something you worked really hard on have to shut down because the people lying about you wouldn’t be reasonable has all got to take a toll.

Often, the more specific clause trumps the more general one. My interpretation of these terms would be that (1) they have a right to copy and redistribute your content, but (2) you have a right to delete your content. If they want to copy and redistribute your deleted content, they should do that instead of putting it right back where it originally was as if you’d never deleted it. AKA I think they could post threads made by mods/admins that contain all the deleted content, where it’s coming from them (i.e. the posts and comments are made by a Reddit account). Per their license agreement, they would not be required to give attribution/moral rights to the original creators (this just means they don’t have to cite their source, basically). Putting it back under the user’s original account (whether that account is deleted or not) would make the line stating, “Please note, however, that the posts, comments, and messages you submitted prior to deleting your account will still be visible to others unless you first delete the specific content,” superfluous.

But what are people going to do, fund a class action against Reddit for restoring deleted content? Maybe talk to some attorneys practicing in that area, contact the EFF (they have attorneys), or crowdfund something. I don’t have any deleted/restored stuff, but if there’s an attorney willing to take the case, I’d still throw in to a crowdfunded effort (if necessary, I don’t know off the top of my head any of the rules about getting attorneys’ fees in class actions, and I’m not sure if this would qualify as a copyright case since it seems that the issue is more of a contract law thing).

I remember in some communities when I was posting where I hadn’t submitted a new post before (I commented much more than posted), going back and forth to the rules over and over again to make sure I didn’t miss something, only to have my post removed by auto mod or a regular mod anyway, for not following some rule that wasn’t in the list of rules.

I got used to not caring about downvotes on comments much, and to not caring about hostile replies, but not the new post “did I somehow violate a rule that wasn’t in the list?” anxiety. I will not miss that at all.

(To be clear, I’m not anti-moderation or anti-mod at all, this is limited to this specific situation, which happened more often than you’d think, sadly.)

I meant it to be more of a comment on their questionable ad sales decision, to be fair.

So I didn’t know what those were until recently, when I clicked over to Reddit in a browser a few times to see things like r/gaming’s “sorry” message and to see that r/funny had opened back up.

Every single time I opened Reddit in my browser, there would be a single post at the top, followed by an advertisement for Jesus right there under the top post. The ads were designed to look like posts, too, so they weren’t even obviously identifiable as ads on first glance.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen an advertisement for Jesus on any other social media site. But in Reddit, apparently it’s very, very common. Does no one else want to buy ad space from them, or do they just put no work into curating which ads users see? Did Jesus pay more to be the top spot every time someone opens their browser?

Out of curiosity, I went over to Reddit and looked at r/Jewish and sure enough, there was an ad for Jesus. Great job, Reddit ad department.

I still can’t get past why they’d allow anyone to even have this power. People responsible for moderating content should be able to delete comments and replace with a comment from the mod explaining why it was deleted, sure, that kind of stuff is fine for the specific people who need that access to do their job.

But giving the CEO (whose job presumably does not entail any individual-comment moderation duties) the ability to edit users’ individual comments to make it look like they wrote something else, without anything indicating someone at Reddit edited it, is insane. Did Condé Nast not implement any basic, common sense rules when they took over, or did it just never occur to them that anyone at the level of CEO would actually do something like this?

Can you imagine being asked to invest in a social media company that allowed its upper management to stealth edit users’ content without notice? It just sounds so unpredictable and potentially dangerous. What if u/spez gets fired and either he or one of his buddies who still works there decides to edit content in a way that undermines the reliability and credibility of major subs like r/science or r/worldnews? Can spez submit new posts or comments from any user’s account? If so, what would stop him or any other disgruntled employee from making crazy posts from verified celebrity accounts (including scientists, politicians, etc.) that have participated in IaMAs in the past or otherwise used accounts that were verified by moderators?

I love your username :)

How do I move to another instance if I signed up at .social?