- 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
Hey look, the cancer is dying of itself…
Im so glad im no longer on there
It’s getting harder not to hate these people
Does it flag “Notmario”?
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.
Fucking scary shit. Now, it is simply “liking” content Reddit doesn’t like. Soon, it will be upvoting things that the government doesn’t want you to see, or paints them in a bad light.
paints them in a bad light.
So, like… facts?
Just like facts.
I’m actually so happy to see the start of the fall of Reddit. It’s been going on for a couple years or so, but it is happening.
It’s so ironic how a site with a leftist lean just chose to alienate their core base. I guess their hope conservatives and liberals staying will make up for it? Lol
Leftist lean is a bit of an understatement. It’s not just Reddit. In general, the radical left is being recognized for the violence and chaos they’ve spread over the last decade and the government is realizing they were left unchecked for too long.
Now they’re just being treated the same as the radical right.
As a centrist, I don’t see the radical left being courted by the president, so I think your comment is presenting a bit of a false equivalence, champ.
I’m a centrist too…
It’s crazy that a pendulum swings drastically back and forth isn’t it? Not a false equivalency if you have any understanding of historical geopolitics.
If you marginalize and de-platform an entire half of your voter base, and cancel people for taking a centrist stance, they’re more likely to band together against your cause, doing more harm long term than if you just toed a rational line.
IE. Because the right were treated the way the left are now being treated for so long, they were polarized and radicalized to the result of who your president is now.
Also, not American, this isn’t just an American thing. This is happening globally.
Can you name one person that got cancelled for taking a centrist stance?
Here is a great example of the “if you’re not with us you’re against us” mentality: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/28/centrism-insidious-bias-unjust-status-quo
Reasonable views being cancelled:
Bari Weiss: A former opinion editor and writer at The New York Times, Weiss is known for her centrist views, often critiquing both the far-left and far-right. In July 2020, she resigned from the newspaper, citing a hostile work environment and alleging that her centrist stances led to bullying by colleagues.
Example of extremes people will go to silence the moderates…
Stefan Gelbhaar: A member of Germany’s Green Party, Gelbhaar, associated with the party’s more centrist “Realo” wing, was forced to withdraw from the federal election race following false sexual harassment allegations. An investigation later revealed that the accusations came from a fictitious persona created by a local Green official, leading to internal tensions within the party.
As a German I’m very familiar with the Gelbhaar case actually and it doesn’t have the slightest thing to do with centrism. It actually ended with the person pushing the fake accusations having to leave the party, but you knew that already.
I’ll look into the others when I’m home later.
Well that was the most out to lunch comment I’ve read this week I think.
What violence and chaos has the radical left spread in the last decade, pray tell
This is unhinged. The so called “radical left” is largely a scapegoat for the people that currently run the government. The “radical left” isn’t going around shooting up synagogues and black churches. Even the one act of violence the “radical left” supports was committed by somebody who clearly was more of a “radical centrist”
Here in Canada they burned churches.
Also, leftist catch and release policy in Canada results in people with dozens of offences immediately put back on the street, and this has resulted in many murders, sexual assaults, continued violent crime by routine offenders. The weak on crime stance has resulted in massive crime increases here. Albeit not a political thing for the people doing the crimes, but a symptom of the policies.
Also, I think everyone is pro-Luigi if that’s the crime you’re talking about. Common ground for all
So what’s the evidence for policy driven crime rates? It appears violent crimes are level and other crimes are down at decades low? Am I missing something?
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/210727/cg-a002-eng.htm
The report by the actual department responsible for it. They’re definitely not level nor down, other than COVID blips which affect all stats everywhere for almost everything… Stats can often underreports:
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ccrso-2022/ccrso-2022-en.pdf#page12
Neat summary and comparison of the trend:
That is some of the most tortured data I’ve ever seen. It cuts off at a multi decade low. For reference the data you linked doesn’t disagree, its just clipped
Advocating for the death of all gay people is by no means the same scale of issue as the radical left.
I clearly missed something, who is doing that?
The radical right.
Source? That’s news to me
With zero respect because you’re not due any, have you not seen any news ever? Have you never talked to these people in real life?
Source is every single one of these fuckers at my work who keep ranting about how the gays are better dead.
Yeah man the radical left’s crazy violent agenda like… Free healthcare, and decent standards of living? No wait I mean the erosion of systems of inequality fuck wait no I mean uh labor rights and empowree workers wait shit no
I’m starting to think the radical let’s crazy agenda is actually far less violent than the status quo
Im Canadian, I don’t consider free healthcare radically left, or left at all really. There needs to exist some social supports, and healthcare is the bare minimum. We don’t go far enough here.
I see a radical as someone who uses extreme language, proposes violent actions toward instituting their ideals, or condones or excuses physical violence on others because of their ideals. Even using cancel culture, or ban culture are ultimately just attacks on freedom of expression to me and would be considered radical by this definition.
I’d not be dismayed to see a bit of violence and chaos from the radical left but I’m struggling to think of examples - do you have some?
BLM, Pro-Palestine, George Floyd… three big ones that come to mind
ROFLMAO. This bloke. Fucking Americans.
I’m not even American
Coulda fooled me since you’re spouting conservative American propaganda.
Removed by mod
How many people died in those?
Gotta say, I feel like being opposed to police brutality and a genocide seems kinda… non radical. As in it doesn’t seem extreme
The interpretation of whether that was police brutality or not, or a genocide or not are the exact things that are radical.
I mean I won’t open that can of worms too much deeper, and I’ll let this one lay down to rest
Okay, what violence did the pro-palestine movement spread, exactly?
I can accept that some buildings got torched and property values temporarily reduced during the George Floyd protests, but when I hear violence, I think harm against flesh and blood, which the police did much, much more of. I can’t think of many instances where the protestors did that.
Those just come off as regular left to me.
When I think of radical left I think tanky types who are full on nationalists and pro authoritarian governments that suppress free think that they are indistinguishable from the far right other than just differences when it comes to stuff like government assisted programs.
I wish I could find it, but I can’t remember which research paper I came across it for; however there is a routine survey and report that measures how Americans feel about core values over time with no changes in the questions, and what it’s shown is that conservatives have moved a little bit more right of centre on most issues, but that liberals have moved almost entirely to the far left.
The thing is, the whole point of liberalism is to consistently move the needle of progress. So it baffles me people fail to realize that today’s “normal” leftist ideologies a decade ago were those people you’re mentioning. But to someone who is still fighting those ideals and hasn’t changed their stance at all, they are still radical ideals.
You are gonna have a hard time around this here social media, comrade, with these clown takes…
There are better places for bootlickers out there
Better to be a wolf in a pack of coyotes, than a hare in a foxes stomach.
Rights you probably take for granted were won by people blowing stuff up or attacking and even killing people.
Through war not chaos.
Can you elaborate please?
The rights I have today were gained through war, not through unfettered chaos.
No one rioted in the streets burning down buildings and looting them to give me my rights. My rights were given to me through wars that were fought. Organized, state in state violence, or organized state vs rebellion open conflict. The distinction is quite important.
We absolutely see lots of news about these violent communist uprisings. Definitely not something you’re imagining. Not at all.
It’s becoming Facebook. A cesspool of people just reverberating off of each other.
At least on Facebook you practically always choose friends to add, groups to join, pages to follow, etc. A surprisingly large number of Reddit users just stick to the default subreddits.
IMO, Facebook is Only good for keeping track of your relatives you don’t feel like visiting.
Same. I know a few people on their I won’t or rarely see in person and I like to see what they’re up to in general life.
So, are subs like /r/Mario and /r/Nintendo going to be banned for “encouraging violence”?
No, the mods will just get constant streams of false positive flags they have to clear.
