- cross-posted to:
- reddit@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- reddit@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
The enshittification continues.
All because of greed.
I don’t think this is about greed… this about owners not liking how plebs feel about a dead CEO
Which is because of greed.
They already own pretty much anything but this point it is about power imho
They want to control how we speak about them in public.
Couldn’t agree more. And they want that control because of greed.
So you think they will get sued by Nintendo?
Came to the comments to find this question lol
I was banned for warning people i would punch them if they upvoted violent content and to knock it off. If spez doesnt want my help then he can go back to his personally moderated kiddy porn subreddits
With doxxing being the threat it is, I kind of get why a mod wouldn’t be comfortable with that. The absolute last thing any mod acting in good faith wants is for someone to track down and hurt in real life a member of their community. Telling people you will punch them for upvoting violent content could be seen as the first step to doxxing someone. It’s a bit over sensitive but we’ve all heard true horror stories about people getting doxxed.
i guess if viewed from an overly protective POV and maybe in a sensitive subreddit in subject matter, but in the more generic subs that make it to Popular regularly, quality shit posting needs to be considered and applauded as being such. Like if it was a subreddit for survivors of being punched by redditors, i would not make such a comment, very poor taste.
Ever since Spez took over, Reddit have been incredibly heavy-handed when it comes to enforcing their rules against inciting or glorifying violence, even if such a comment is directed towards people that are objectively hated, like nazis, pedophiles and child murderers. To that I’m not even remotely surprised that you got banned.
Even posting that Nazis deserve to be punched in the face can get you a permanent ban from Reddit… You know… the people who over 80 years ago were responsible for gassing 6 million Jews, 6 million Russian POWs and thousands of homosexuals and political dissidents.
You now also get penalized for even upvoting content they find objectionable. (for example, comments containing the name Luigi)
Im so glad im no longer on there
Hey look, the cancer is dying of itself…
It’s getting harder not to hate these people
It just shows how scared the elites are of all the people they screwed over.
They can’t like stop looting, for them it is is easier to run propaganda and censorship regime so they can keep fucking us.
This is what a class war looks like in practice, and most people still denial about it.
Does it flag “Notmario”?
Innocent until proven guilty.
Why stop there? If I where reddit and we go with these kinds of decisions, I’d propose the use of LLMs to ban anything that consititutes negative statement including disagreements.
“All I said was ‘that piece of halibut was good enough for luigi’”
“BLASPHEMY”
“Luigi, luigi, luigi”
So who wants to help me Digg the grave for Reddit? /s
Sort of sad to see another online home fall but nothing lasts forever.
The guy stomps on innocent, unsuspecting little turtles and occasionally burns them alive. Of course it should be flagged.
And what’s with those legs on SMB2? He’s clearly on some kind of drugs.
A Reddit spokesperson, who requested that The Verge not use their name due to the sensitive subject matter
What the fuck is this? We’re granting corporate spokespeople anonymity now?
Actually, yeah. Otherwise, you fuck up whistleblowing. They could be in the position, realize what’s happening is wrong, be documenting it, trying to get out, etc…
Are you seriously suggesting there is no way to grant whistleblowers anonymity without granting it to corporate spokespeople providing statements on behalf of the company? You’re a fucking idiot
You give it to whoever asks for it or you never get another source again.
This isn’t a “source”. This is a corporate spokesperson
Was this corporate spokesperson authorized to talk to this outlet about this topic? Just because they’re a spokesperson doesn’t mean they can talk freely.
Yes, that’s what a spokesperson is. Did you read the article? If it was a leak that would have been stated.
…its both
Even though it’s a corporate spokesperson, they wouldn’t have requested anonymity if they were allowed to talk about it…
Untrue. Reddit employees doing what their bosses tell them to are justifiably afraid of the blowback. Reminds me of the directive to not wear Reddit branding with the 3rd party app thing These folks don’t want targets on their back.
In journalism, a source is a person, publication, or knowledge of other record or document that gives timely information. Outside journalism, sources are sometimes known as “news sources”. Examples of sources include official records, publications or broadcasts, officials in government or business, organizations or corporations, witnesses of crime, accidents or other events, and people involved with or affected by a news event or issue.
That’s not what they do according to their own ethics statement
I’m not reading that. What are you saying?
Take the link and scroll down to the section titled “ON BACKGROUND”
Edit: I never learn how to not try to be helpful to hostile commenters. I’m legit just trying to clarify or explain.
I tried to help someone who prefaced their confusion with an assertion that they were unwilling to read the linked material. This one’s on me, I guess.
I still don’t get it. Nothing there says a spokesperson is not a source. Which is good because saying such a thing would make absolutely no sense.
I’m legit just trying to clarify or explain.
Don’t know what makes you label me as “hostile”, I’m legit just trying to understand.
they were unwilling to read the linked material
It’s like 12 paragraphs of non-sense. The person who looked it up and shared the link could just as easily have copied and shared the relevant portion.
A corporate spokesperson spoke to them “on background”. A “corporate communications professional speaking to [them] in [their] official capacity“ has the option detailed in that section to request anonymity while being quoted.
There must have been an agreement between The Verge and the corporate representative to speak without being identified beyond their affiliation with the company, as described In the section titled “on background”.
Once again, none of this contradicts what I said.
Uhh, isn’t that kinda against the whole point of being a spokesperson in the first place? To put a name and a face behind a message?
Dunno why The Verge plays along.
Because The Verge wants them to return their calls. It’s not like it matters. Spokespeople aren’t the ones making decisions. It’s the C-suits, which is publicly available.
The anti evil operations team has done this in the past.
What the fuck is “the anti evil operations team”? That sounds like corpospeak for a team that does deeply evil shit
Luigi is a hero.
See how easy that is when you aren’t given the table scraps of the rich?
You are now banned from .world for inciting violence.
Dunno why. I’m just talking about the guy who fights ghouls who live in mansions.
Fight is violence, no? So you’re banned! Please, don’t write anything. Because you’re banned and that’s how ban works :)
Man, it’s getting so hard to talk about video games, these days… 😉
That hasn’t happened in a long time.
It should never have happened at all.
