goood!
Reddit behaved in such a horrible way, that I feel like API pricing was the least of the bad...
One could argue about their fairness and aim to destroy 3rd party apps, and I had already closed my accounts at that very step.
But the way they treated mods, forced subs to open and behaved like pure evil assholes, I really see how companies or more "official" subreddits with a touch of interest in their users, would feel the desire to leave and close bridges
I don't even care about the API prices and I used to use the official Reddit mobile app before migrating.
I've been looking for an open source Reddit like platform since the Twitter drama started and people started migrating to Mastodon, but there wasn't much content on them, until now, so I jumped on the band wagon.
I felt this. I just honestly needed another option and so star this seems to be it. I don’t understand the difference between kbin and lemmy. I’m hoping apps just end up supporting both platforms/instances.
I feel the same way.
As an Apollo user, I didn’t immediately leave since I wanted to see if some agreement would be done.
But the way they treated the devs is insulting, I work on IT and know a bit of how complex and time consuming this is; doing all this work just to be considered a parasite to be cut, and seeing how horrible the AMA was; really showed Reddit’s true colors.
Currently liking this federated initiative, big potential and less company ruining agenda. Very comfy here.
If Apollo works things out with reddit, I'd be willing to consider keeping reddit as a secondary source of content. But I think that bridge has been burnt so bad that that is highly unlikely
Artemis, an app in development for kbin, is also heavily inspired by Apollo (hence the name also being a Greek god starting with A and known for their skills with the bow)
I didn’t even use Apollo but the defining moment for me was when spez lied about his interactions with the dev. That shit is foul and I just do not want to associate with that.
Didn't even think about it until now, but a company could start their own lemmy service. Wonder if that's a thing already or will become a thing. The only issue for them is would other instances federated with them, if I'm correct? Still new and learning.
The underhanded, lying, victim blaming actions from reddit were so much worse than the shutdown on its own. If reddit had been more honest about their intentions of shutting down 3PA from the beginning, 3PA users still wouldn’t have been thrilled, but we wouldn’t be seeing this reddit meltdown.
The app still works for me. But I've been hearing Reddit has shut down the old mod API token, but not the regular token yet. So that might explain a little. However, RedReader was granted accessibility exemption so who knows what's going on.
When RIF died today a part of me died. But with death comes rebirth, and here we are. Forcibly pushed out of our comfort zones and into the brave new world of the fediverse. I have a feeling I will look upon this day with the same joy and reverence as the day my friend download rif on my phone for me all those years ago. It felt weird at first then became something I used almost every day. I have a feeling the same will happen here. We're all about to create something beautiful. Oh yeah and fuck spez
Through constant vigilance, anyways. Every time you see some little fuck dogwhistling about FREE SPEECH or CENSORSHIP, you gotta make sure they aren't welcome in these parts.
"Far right buffoonery" starts with people batching about how they're being """censored""" for saying slurs or trying to have "honest conversations about race" or whatever.
Nip 'em in the bud and voila, no Nazis on your kbin.
I remember concrete dog whistle accusation generally falling into two categories:
Checking their comment history revealed either actual Nazi apologia or a general destructive behaviour if you looked deep enough.
Checking their comment history revealed that the accuser was a pro-censorship and didn’t like dissenting opinions.
My conclusion: dog whistles are a reason to look deeper. Keep an eye on those people. However, don’t just condemn them.
The very point of dog whistles is to appear innocuous and even invisible to "normal people". False positives are inevitable, and after seeing a dozen actual dog whistles, pareidolia will make you see their shapes everywhere.
I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, "no. get out."
And the dude next to me says, "hey i'm not doing anything, i'm a paying customer." and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, "out. now." and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed
Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, "you didn't see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them."
And i was like, ohok and he continues.
"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.
And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.
And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."
And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven't forgotten that at all.
One of my good friends does tattoos, and he doesn't do them for pretty much this exact reason. Like on one hand, fuck Nazis and he doesn't want to do it. On the other hand, money is money. They're gonna get it done, so might as well be the one that gets paid.
But ultimately he doesn't want to make anyone else who comes in uncomfortable, and he doesn't want to slowly become known as the guy who does all the Nazi tattoos. It makes him look bad and means he will get fewer people. So it's best to just tell them no.
There's a Lemmy instance perfect for you then: exploding-heads.
We are more than welcome to decide what behavior is and isn't appropriate in our own community. If you don't like it, then you don't have to be here. You aren't entitled to our friendship.
want a place free of authoritarian policies that don't limit actual human discourse.
You've already been given a suggestion for just that kind of instance. If you want to see that kind of content, there's a spot for that.
Or are you just upset that there are places who don't welcome those kinds of dumbfuck takes? Is it that you want to see the content for yourself, or that you want to make the content and force everyone to see it?
Either way, this instance isn't the place for you. Exploding heads is. Go there, be happy.
Do you prefer having a centralized authority dictating your exposure to content? What prevents you from personally blocking instances you disagree with and allowing others to make their own choices? Is it possible that the idea of critical thinking is discomforting and it's more convenient to be shielded from diverging opinions, rather than exercising personal discernment?
The problem here is what gets defined as bigotry and who gets to define it? I was called a nazi for expressing the same opinion I'm expressing here. Do you think that might be a bit much? How long until the bubble of acceptable thoughts and opinions shrinks so much YOU get defined as a nazi?
It's not a fallacy when it has already slipped to calling all Republicans (or even people who wish to hear their opinions) nazis and fascist. Why don't you think it will slip further?
Who defines what counts as "bigotry"? I think the guys over at beehaw are extremely bigoted. does that mean that we should prevent everyone from speaking with them simply because I think they're bigots?
EXACTLY. Downvotes and disagreement are the cornerstone of a functioning human society. It shows that we're engaging in a discussion where various perspectives are presented. What I'm advocating for is not an echo chamber where everyone bows to some transient and fluctuating ideal of "correctness", but a platform for the diversity of thoughts and ideas. So, the downvotes don't bother me, but rather embolden the importance of speaking what I believe to be true and attempting to understand the beliefs of others. If people like me don't speak up then we will just create echo chambers of intolerance on both sides of the spectrum. Debate me, prove me wrong. Downvotes don't prove me wrong, they only prove discomfort and anger. Despite engaging in several discussions, I've yet to understand the benchmarks being used here for branding someone a 'nazi'—a very strong term used liberally here and even against me in another thread for sharing views similar to what I've expressed here. I shouldn't be called a nazi for believing in individual autonomy, it discredits a persons entire argument if they can so easily warp a terrible insult like that just to fit their own narrative. The ease with which people advocate for authoritarian censorship, despite having personal control over their content exposure, genuinely worries me. I find it unsettling how readily people will relinquish their intellectual freedom.
Fuck off to your sad shithole, nobody has any obligation to be nice to Nazis. To the contrary, every decent person should feel obligated to strongly tell them to fuck off. You don't have a space here, we don't want you here, you are not welcome.
Do you prefer having a centralized authority dictating your exposure to content?
Like, you mean, a website? That's what you mean by "centralized authority", right? A website? With its Terms and Conditions, following the applicable copyright and IP laws, following the relevant laws of the jurisdiction it operates in? Yeah, I'm fine with that.
If you're not, go to Exploding Heads. They welcome you. They want you.
I don't want exploding-heads. I would have blocked the instance myself if it hadn't been blocked already. My issue is I don't like having content blocked FOR me because I'm a functioning adult that can make my own decisions about what I see and think. You should be careful with how quick you are to cede control of what you're allowed to see to others. Might make you pretty susceptible to hate and give you a false sense of reality.
Oh, is 4chan too much freedom for you? What happened to your whole "no rules, just right" attitude?
It's sounding more and more like you don't give a single fuck about seeing this kind of content; you want to force us to see this content. All the places you could go to get it, and you're still arguing that we should have to see it too or we're not free.
You're right. We're not free. We're sad, pathetic, chained little sheep beholden to a "central authority" that doesn't allow hate speech. Run while you can! Flee, quickly! Or you, too, might get consumed by the woke mind virus and start thinking that maybe the Jews are ok people!
I'm not an unreasonable person. I just wanna chat, share my thoughts, share what I'm into, without being censored to hell because some perpetually offended people took offense at regular everyday human things, or noticing things going on in society and thinking about what might cause such.
I don't want to send people death threats, I don't care to say the slurs everyone knows are slurs (but fuck you if you're gonna declare regular speech to be a slur, or medical terms to be a slur).
I just wanna be able to talk to people online? why is that so hard for people to accept? Why should I be literally banned from civilization simply for acknowledging the medical science on my own diagnosed medical condition; merely because some perpetually offended morons were offended by science?
Why should I be silenced, simply for wanting to discuss things without blindly believing idiots with money?
Are those exploding-heads guys dicks? sure, probably most of them are. are they correct about what they're saying? I don't know, I'd like to talk to them and hear where they're coming from, and tell them about my own thoughts. why do you feel the need to get in the way of that discussion when you aren't even a part of it? if you don't wanna chat with those guys, why is it so hard for you to just use the block button? why must you prevent everyone from speaking with them?
I genuinely do not understand that viewpoint, and no one who is on the side of "censor everyone" seems to want to explain it. They'd rather just block/censor/ban you and shut down the conversation entirely. why? are you afraid you might be in the wrong?
The issue I have with this overzealousness to censor is that the people who are most eager to censor others, are often the most bigoted, hateful, and misinformed. The suggestion of going to exploding-heads is just dishonest. They are undeniably right-wing. What I wish for is an open platform where left and right can speak freely to each other in polite discourse, not simply just be exposed to whatever dogshit takes some far right people post. going to exploding-heads would then limit my ability to see other positions.
Are you suggesting that I should have an account on each fediverse instance, just to get all of the content? If so, then what the actual fuck is the point of federation in the first place?
What I wish for is an open platform where left and right can speak freely to each other in polite discourse
Oh, I see. You're delusional. You honestly think I should be having "polite discourse" with people who either want me dead, or are ok with voting for people who want me dead.
Because, see, what's left? What makes a Republican want to claim to be a Republican other than the culture war bullshit? What do they stand for? They haven't stood for "fiscal responsibility" or "small government" since W was in office. The straight-up write things like "We stand against teaching critical thinking in schools" (see: Texas GOP party platform) into their guiding documents. And you think they're going to have a civil conversation? You think I owe them a civil conversation?
Every server we allow those people on freely will become exploding heads or 4 chan. Go look at r/politicalcompassmemes if you need an example. I don't know how many times we have to watch it happen before you get the picture, or maybe this is your first ever internet community experience. But you're wrong. Their bad-faith rhetoric, carefully-stated death threats, and direct personal attacks will drive everyone who isn't one of them away, leaving only Nazis. If the admins call them out and ban them for that stuff, they'll end up banning all of them and we'll be having this same conversation. If the admins allow their speech, but don't allow us to say "Fuck off, weeb, nobody likes you" without censure, then guess who gets to control the "discourse"? And if the admins don't ban anyone for it, we'll become Voat. Since only the slimiest members of humanity can tolerate that vibe for long, guess who ends up owning the server by default?
You wanna see that shit, you enjoy being called slurs and told to go kys, you are free to seek out the communities who will do that for you. But fuck all the way off with telling me I must put up with it, too.
Oh, I can block them? No I fucking can't. I blocked you days ago, and your shit still shows up in my notifications. So, again, fuck off. If I have to listen to whatever dumb shit spills out of your brain, against my will, then you get to listen to my toxicity.
Are you suggesting that I should have an account on each fediverse instance, just to get all of the content? If so, then what the actual fuck is the point of federation in the first place?
...you... honestly thought... the fediverse... was supposed to be a centralized content aggregator...?
What.... uh, so, what... what do you think the fediverse is?
Oh, I see. You're delusional. You honestly think I should be having "polite discourse" with people who either want me dead, or are ok with voting for people who want me dead.
have you.... talked with them? I try to speak with everyone and pretty much none of them actually want me dead. If you want to talk about voting criminals into power, look at the democrat party, who legit rigged the 2020 election to vote a known pedophile rapist and warmonger into power. a guy who literally pushed racist and homophobic policy. a guy who literally is fighting to repeal racial equality. a guy who literally openly said he'd deny me healthcare. should we then shut down conversation with every democrat voter? why are you so eager to shut down conversation? do you not realize that creates echochambers, which increases the extremism and polarization?
Because, see, what's left? What makes a Republican want to claim to be a Republican other than the culture war bullshit?
If you actually spoke to them and tried to understand where they're coming from, maybe you'd learn that :) instead you choose to shut down conversation, ban them, censor them, any chance you get. So of course you don't understand why they hold the views and say the things they do! you never listened to what they had to say!
Regardless of how offended you might feel or say you are, the reality is that there are actually decent points to be made by people in both major political parties; as well as the varying 3rd parties. Personally, I found my own view on things that matches neither cleanly, so where's that put me? should I just be on the side of censoring both democrats and republicans? or are you suggesting that anyone that holds any view other than your specific view should be censored and banned? is anything other than openly accepting and celebrating human sacrifice something that should be silenced, censored, and banned? serious question. is going against that "being hateful and intolerant"? where is your line? how about pedophilia? are people against pedophilia just "hateful bigots who are intolerant and mean for no real reason"? where is your line?
The reality is that there's a lot of, and growing, opposition to progressive ideology because it is causing harm to real people. Surely, if something is causing harm, we should try to stop that harm? IMO the proper thing to do is to try and base our views on science (not feelings), and to try and heal and help as many people as possible reach their potential, while also avoiding societal setups that would inevitably lead to problems. Is this an unreasonable stance?
They haven't stood for "fiscal responsibility" or "small government" since W was in office.
I think you'll find if you talk to a lot of registered republicans that they do actually hold those views, but that many of the establishment career politicians hold different views than the people voting for them. Ironically, people who are against sending obscene amount of money to ukraine are now called "bigots". so if they push for small gov and fiscal responsibility, they're a bigot. but if they don't, they're a hypocrite? aren't you being unfair?
I don't think you owe anyone anything. I think that you're in the wrong, and are an authoritarian tyrant and bigot yourself, if you try to shut down a conversation between two consenting people who are completely unrelated to you and aren't addressing you. If you don't wish to speak to someone, that's on you, feel free to ignore them or block them. But it says a lot about you if the second you run into a disagreement, or if you think someone's doing something wrong, instead of helping correct their behavior or ideas, you instead shut down the conversation and let them keep doing what they're doing. Do you have no feeling of obligation to help improve society? if not, I'd say that puts you as worse than them. While they may be misinformed or perhaps hateful due to their ignorance, you are openly admitting that you don't wish to improve society. I'd much prefer a misinformed and ignorant group who want to do the right thing, than someone who neglects the possibility of improving society.
Every server we allow those people on freely will become exploding heads or 4 chan.
I thought "reality has a liberal bias" and all that? Surely, if we allow people to discuss, to debate, to converse with each other, and to let everyone speak rather than a few, we should arrive at what is true, yeah? if you're saying people will become conservative after fair uncensored debate and discussion, then surely they are right? No one is asking for 4chan. there's a difference between fair, uncensored, civil polite discussion, and shitflinging slurs around. exploding-heads themselves have a ban on slurs.
Go look at r/politicalcompassmemes if you need an example.
One of the best subreddits for actual discussion between people of differing ideas? I'd prefer if more places where like that, personally. What issue do you have with them? They're a meme sub but the civility there is awe inspiring.
Their bad-faith rhetoric, carefully-stated death threats, and direct personal attacks will drive everyone who isn't one of them away, leaving only Nazis.
I can't say that's ever been my experience in right wing spaces. I've only ever had that experience in progressive spaces. Perhaps what you're experiencing isn't a problem with right wing people, but rather the hostility and polarization between two groups that are constantly at each other's throats because they refuse to hear each other out?
If the admins allow their speech, but don't allow us to say "Fuck off, weeb, nobody likes you" without censure, then guess who gets to control the "discourse"?
Why do you feel that their insults shouldn't be allowed, but yours should? Isn't that unfair? Either we prevent all insults and have civil discussion (my preference), or we allow all insults from both sides. Surely that's fair?
You wanna see that shit, you enjoy being called slurs and told to go kys, you are free to seek out the communities who will do that for you. But fuck all the way off with telling me I must put up with it, too.
The opposite is actually happening here. You are trying to push your content preferences onto everyone else. All I'm saying is: let the users decide. If you wanna block them, go ahead. Craft your own echochamber. But why should you being offended at civil discussion mean that no one else can discuss things?
Oh, I can block them? No I fucking can't. I blocked you days ago, and your shit still shows up in my notifications.
Fair enough. This seems to be a bug then. I agree that should be fixed. blocking should prevent you from seeing the blocked content.
...you... honestly thought... the fediverse... was supposed to be a centralized content aggregator...?
My understanding was that I'd sign up on a single site, and then have access to content from across the federated sites. Not: have to sign up an account on each individual site, and only see that one site's content. Isn't that latter way just a centralized platform? where is the "federated" part then?
What.... uh, so, what... what do you think the fediverse is?
Sign up on one site -> see content from all the sites. is this not the point of the fediverse? are you really saying the fediverse is: sign up on one site -> see only that site's content? because that just sounds like a regular centralized platform to me.
If me and you are having a discussion, but the topic is the fact that I want to kill you, how long will it take before you stop wanting to talk to me?
"But it's just words!"
Well, we know that's not true, so how long would it take before you stopped wanting to be around me?
Oh, also I promote pediphelia. Just as a little fun thing. Just the casual story of raping kids.
I get the appeal. I do. I 1000% do. I get it. But also fuck Nazis. I don't want to be around them. I'm gay, so they don't want to be around me. Fuck pedophiles. I don't want to be around them. So if a site is filled with Nazis and pedophiles, I'm gonna go to a different site. Now you have an echo chamber of Nazis and pedophiles. The thing you wanted to avoid. But you're stuck with only talking to Nazis and pedophiles.
Meanwhile the bubble without Nazis is a really large bubble encompassing everything except Nazis and pedophiles.
I'm not advocating for unchallenged platforms for nazis. What I'm concerned about is the dangerous broadening of the term 'nazi' to include any viewpoint differing from one's own. Neither you nor I hold all the answers. However, I'm not the one categorizing wide-ranging groups as 'nazis' to conveniently dismiss dissenting views, while complacently considering myself superior to all those being arbitrarily mislabeled as 'nazis'. It SERIOUSLY weakens your entire argument when you throw that word around so carelessly.
Well we don't use it for just anyone who has any different opinion. So the problem right there is solved. We do use it frequently. But that's when we see thing like homo/transphobia(Nazis hated queer people), antisemitism(another group Nazis hated), racism(also Nazis), and sexism(once again, Nazis). There seems to be a pretty fucking large overlap of what modern day Republicans preach and what the Nazis preached. Including as of lately "eradicating transgenderness" and "erasing communities." As well as the amount of terrorist attacks that ha e actively been encouraged.
So if you would prefer we could just call everyone bigot, since that includes them all and not everyone personally considers themselves a Nazi, but I hardly see the difference between a Nazi, the KKK, Proud Boys, 3%ers, etc, when they all preach the exact same stuff. At that point you're not arguing anything except semantics. It's like the whole "race realism" thing. It's racism, but more palatable to racists who think the name racist is mean, but not the mentality.
I guess another way to look at it is as people keep bringing up, but there's a German saying about this. If you have a table with 9 people and 1 Nazi, you have 10 Nazis.
This also doesn't change the actual argument being made, which is about a forum that is open. In which case, you do get Nazis. Like not even what we mean when we call Nazis as Nazis, but people who call themselves Nazis. We have seen that over and over and over. You get Nazis, and you get pedophiles. Then everyone else starts to leave and you are stuck with Nazis and pedophiles.
So once again, I get the mentality behind it. In a lot of ways I would love a site like that. But it's also a little different for those of us that are having people call for our deaths on a regular basis.
How do we define 'nazi' and who is the authority that applies that label? If the word 'nazi' is carelessly applied to anyone exhibiting even slightly right-leaning tendencies, it diminishes its significance and undermines your credibility. This kind of naive approach and severe lack of nuance will lead to an intolerant echo chamber.
Fuck nazis, but also fuck anyone who dilutes the meaning by inappropriately labeling any viewpoint they don't like as nazism or fascism.
Carefully, on a case-by-case basis; and the community.
It's not nearly as complicated as it seems on the surface - and you're trying to make any definition of "nazi" as complicated as possible, because you're wanting to delegitimize any rejection of nazis or nazi speech.
Remember how you said you don't care if people like you, you just want to push your topics on other people?
it diminishes its significance and undermines your credibility.
No one cares if the Nazis think they're "credible" or not. Each and every one of them will tell you they're not a nazi and they 'hate' nazis - while defending themselves and their nazi buddies from critique by insisting the label for their ideology is, for example, "cheapened" if applied to anyone who is not a card-carrying, armband-wearing, farcical exaggeration of stereotypical Nazis in full Reich dress regalia.
They always send the clean cut, quiet, polite one in first. And that guy puts a foot in the door, argues that their pals aren't really nazis, and that everyone in the room are the real baddies for judging those other guys unfairly - and tries to pry the door wider so their Nazi buddies can come in. Sure enough, every time, you let enough nazis in the room and the room is a nazi space now - so the whole gang of them don't have to pretend at being polite non-nazis anymore. The polite veneer, the deep care for "debate", and "respect for all viewpoints"? Those are all just tools, trying to whitewash and re-legitimize an ideology whose end goal is harming other people.
Notice how I'm casually referring to you like you're one of them? That's not some wokist over-use of the term. You're standing here defending them, you're trying to shove a foot in the door for them, laying down apologia for their views and their right to share them - you've spent like a week around the Fediverse arguing against any actions that have served to limit Nazis access to polite and adult spaces within the Fediverse as a whole. I don't care what you believe about yourself, or your views, or your ideology.
If you're going to stand with Nazis, if you're going to stand for them, consistently and repeatedly - don't get all offended and playact at being victimized when people assume that you are a member of the group you chose to stand with.
I'm not aligning with nazis, but advocating against the misuse and overuse of the term (which is utterly rampant here). The problem with using such powerful labels casually is that it muddies the waters and blurs lines that should be clear but now aren't precisely because of the misuse of the term. It's this very misuse that is leading to misinterpretations, such as the one we're facing here, where I'm inaccurately labeled as standing with nazis. My stance is about nuanced understanding and precision in communication, not about sympathizing with hate ideologies. I am defending thoughtful dialogue, not nazis, and it's important not to conflate the two. Since everyone is so happy with misusing the term, what are we going to call ACTUAL nazis so that we can differentiate people you disagree with and ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS. The semantics you're playing with are a dangerous game, and do nothing but prove my point.
You're aligning yourself with nazis while engaging in sophistry to pretend that neither you nor they are nazis.
All these wild mental gymnastics to explain how it's not like that, or the farcical posturing of academic exactitude and "nuanced understanding" - those are the exact same shit as nazis sending in the quiet well-spoken guy to break the ice and get a foot in the door.
You're doing triple overtime to figure out ways to argue compassion for cryptofascists and nazi sympathizers, while going even further out of your way to avoid having the faintest shred of empathy for people who simply want nothing to do with any of that bullshit.
You can call them whatever you want. You don't get to demand that we call them what you want us to. You don't get to demand that we ignore your choice to align yourself with them, to defend them, and to try and make their views sound more palatable and more reasonable than their end goals.
Since everyone is so happy with misusing the term, what are we going to call ACTUAL nazis so that we can differentiate people you disagree with and ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS.
I completely understand that you absolutely refuse to get it and will continue to avoid getting it forevermore - but I'm going to say it for the rest of the room anyways.
Those guys are the "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS".
They just understand that pretending that they're not is the only way to get through the door of spaces dominated by the reasonable mainstream they'd like to sell their ideology to. They know that the reasonable mainstream wants nothing to do with "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS" so the "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS" dress up as the people you're currently defending and trying to make this conversation about. And anyone in that group that you're trying to defend the nazis by pointing towards, any single person among them who doesn't want to stand with nazis - changes where they stand so that they're not with the nazis anymore. You're staying still while trying to defend that decision.
The "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS" don't dress up in SS Uniforms and 'heil' each other in the comments sections - they pretend to be reasonable mainstream people and in order to present their views and their talking points wrapped in rhetoric that masks its nazi roots. They want to win over the mainstream, they want to convince people they're "on to" something, they want to exploit our willingness to engage in discourse to sell their views and advance their ideology. They are not here to engage in debate - the debate is merely a vehicle towards seizing power and then acting out an ideology of violence and hatred.
I'm not 'playing semantics' - I'm not even engaging with yours.
We are not going to split hairs and massage academic definitions until "ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS" aren't actually nazis anymore. Either you're a useful idiot and not qualified to try and talk down on folks about the intricate semantics of "nazi" - or you're actually on their side.
thats weird. i never get called a fascist, and nobody i know gets called fascists, and i've never had to worry about other people calling me a fascist when i disagree with them. huh...
sure. i’ll bite. how about you tell me exactly what opinions have gotten you branded in this way? please. tell me what exactly are the kinds of things you say that get other people to call you a nazi.
i’ll drop the tone. i’ve looked at your other comments, have a general clue about what you’re about. i’ll just say this: there are specific patterns of behavior and ideas which are either attributed to or linked to the Nazi Party, or more generally to fascist ideologies, which have, throughout history, led to oppressive regimes. when people see these patterns or ideas expressed, there is a tendency on the left to reject these ideas because of that association, because they have proved to be potent tools for the spread of fascism, and encourage the dehumanization of minority groups.
transphobia, and specifically appeals to the pedophilic nature of queer people? this is unambiguously Nazi shit. trans people were the some of the very first people the nazi’s actually threw into concentration camps in nazi germany. this process included the burning of medical literature describing the proper treatment of transgender people. it also included the denial of an explicit description of the gender spectrum, as observed by medical professionals of the time. so if you are dismissive of or make a political issue out of trans identity, call queer people groomers, any of that bullshit, even if you are “not a nazi”, many of the information sources publishing anti-trans rhetoric today have explicit ties to real neo-nazi organizations, or are politically aligned with movements calling for the “eradication” of “”“transgenderism”“”.
to anybody with an education on the historical circumstances of Nazi Germany, this exact rhetoric and the modern political movement against trans people, is unambiguously mirrored by the actions of modern republican politicians, including legislating restrictions against cross-dressing (happened in nazi germany), restricting transgender medical care (happened in nazi germany), and revoking the ability for trans people to be recognized legally as trans (happened in nazi germany). people who are queer or trans both do not necessarily want to be confronted with this rhetoric wherever they go online, as it can be extremely distressing seeing people parroting literal nazi talking points in the modern era, and do not want that kind of rhetoric to spread, because it was nazi propaganda that lead to the execution of human beings.
while theoretically somebody might “misuse” this label, call somebody a transphobe or a nazi when they aren’t explicitly talking about this stuff, you may be able to follow the logic from here. if transphobia, questioning the validity of transgender identity, calling for the restriction of transgender medical care, restricting access to books about queer people, if this has explicit links to nazi ideology and activity, what do you call people that want to open up a space for these people to spread their beliefs? what do you call people who accommodate or legitimize these beliefs which have led to the genocide of people groups? well, for a lot of people, if you accommodate the people who accommodate the fascists, that really isn’t that different from letting the fascists run about.
maybe you don’t think of yourself as somebody who does that. maybe you really do think of yourself as a moderate who wants productive discourse, and believes that if everybody just talked to each other, all these political divisions would be easier for us to solve. for the people who would be impacted by the threat of violence behind these beliefs, that isn’t so easy. for the people who see the striking similarity between the modern transgender panic and the genocidal escalation of yesteryear, it isn’t worth the risk to allow in the would be monsters, willing to execute the people who are not like them, even if that means that some reasonable people are caught in the crossfire. hopefully that gives you at least some insight into why productive dialogue isn’t a very convincing argument on this side of the fence. you’ve called yourself a moderate in other posts. tell me, what is the moderate position between genocide and tolerance? between eradication and acceptance? if you’re moderate about that shit? well, that just sounds like bigotry to me.
i would encourage you, if you aren’t just a nazi concern troll, to look into the Institut fur Sexualwissenschaft, and the history behind the persecution of transgender and gay people in nazi germany, and try to conceive of why people believe that they are right in rejecting those who display sympathy towards the right wing of the United States, especially in light of their modern retreading of old bigotry. i would love to give people the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they are truly just advocates for free speech, concerned about authoritarian censorship, all that jazz, but the content of what opinions people like you are defending the right to have are historically ruinous for minority groups, a harbinger of a horrifically violent regime which killed countless people, and burned the records of what had been learned about their humanity.
I don't believe I've insulted anyone but if you think I have could you point to an example? I'm expressing my opinion (which certainly appears unpopular) and if that is seen as insulting or fighty then I don't know what to tell you. I'm going to keep expressing my opinion.
I was called a fascist on Reddit for saying that punching nazis is a victimless crime, because punching people, merely because they want to eradicate other people, is a well-known staple of fascism.
Yeah but if everyone slightly right of center gets labeled a nazi then you can just call anyone you don't like a nazi and you can do whatever you want to them. That's a problem.
I get called a fascist nazi all the time merely for agreeing with the 1st amendment of the USA which guarantees the right to free speech. If simply supporting the right to freely speak means you get called nazi/fascist, then I'd be wary of anyone who wasn't accused of such.
I was banned from a bunch of subs all at once because I said in one (I'm still not sure which one), that I don't think children should undergo gender or sex transition.
What a boring and unnecessary opinion to have. You're not their doctor, they arent your patients, what business is it of yours? and to go on about sharing that uneducated, untrained, unsolicited opinion online and then complaining about censorship when your medical advice is not well received.. I just can't wrap my head around the entitlement.
If your goal is to have a safe space for an oppressed minority group to express themselves, allowing transphobes to go about "just asking questions" and harassing people shuts down conversation of a group that actually has their freedom of expression threatened. Allowing harassment is more censorship than banning it. And no one should have the expectation of being able to just go into anyone's house and shit on their floor without consequence. And that might mean being banned from going to all of their friend's houses as well.
But you don't know what they said or what the community was. You are missing my general point. Please don't support general fascism behavior, whether it is from the right or left.
On top of that, this isn't somebody's house. That isn't a good analogy.
They already said quite clearly that they're transphobic. The "I don't think children should undergo gender or sex transition" is almost verbatim an anti-trans talking point.
Here's some actual research on the subject of trans people, including trans youth, and suicide risk. With citations;
Bauer, et al., 2015: Transition vastly reduces risks of suicide attempts, and the farther along in transition someone is the lower that risk gets.
de Vries, et al, 2014: A clinical protocol of a multidisciplinary team with mental health professionals, physicians, and surgeons, including puberty suppression, followed by cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery, provides trans youth the opportunity to develop into well-functioning young adults. All showed significant improvement in their psychological health, and they had notably lower rates of internalizing psychopathology than previously reported among trans children living as their natal sex. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population.
Gorton, 2011 (Prepared for the San Francisco Department of Public Health): “In a cross-sectional study of 141 transgender patients, Kuiper and Cohen-Kittenis found that after medical intervention and treatments, suicide fell from 19 percent to zero percent in transgender men and from 24 percent to 6 percent in transgender women.)”
Murad, et al., 2010: "Significant decrease in suicidality post-treatment. The average reduction was from 30% pretreatment to 8% post treatment."
De Cuypere, et al., 2006: Rate of suicide attempts dropped dramatically from 29.3% to 5.1% after receiving medical and surgical treatment among Dutch patients treated from 1986-2001.
UK study: "Suicidal ideation and actual attempts reduced after transition, with 63% thinking about or attempting suicide more before they transitioned and only 3% thinking about or attempting suicide more post-transition.
Heylens, 2014: Found that the psychological state of transgender people "resembled those of a general population after hormone therapy was initiated."
Perez-Brumer, 2017: "These findings suggest that interventions that address depression and school-based victimization could decrease gender identity-based disparities in suicidal ideation."
Here's a study showing that children know what gender they prefer and don't change their minds on it.
Transitioning is One solution, and it is valid to be able to discuss other options. Your citations bring good discussion points, but shouldn't be used to ban people.
My point is about censorship and the race to the bottom thst it can and often brings.
I don't know, I'm always in favor of banning transphobes. Their arguments are always based in hatred, not any verifiable science. I gave you the science.
If the scientific community overwhelmingly and independently comes to the same conclusion over and over again, insisting on being able to discuss other solutions, especially not in the context of academic exploration (because it IS important for the scientific process to check opposing hypothesis and to peer review) but in the Context of telling a baseless opinion easily disputed, then no.
That's like the people who insist on 'discussing other explanazions' for climate change.
And it is more than understandable that this insistence then is seen as the Opposite of good faith arguing and met with resistance. There is no point in giving a forum to harmful lies. That is not productive discourse
Except that's a sidestep. The viewpoint you were defending was saying that this one specific option, that has substantial academic backing for positive outcomes for kids, should not happen or should be prohibited.
That's not "discuss other options" - that's discussing this option and arguing that society should take it away.
That you're now trying to argue that it's just discussion and it's reasonable debate and - forgive my bluntness - being openly dishonest about what the original speech was that you're defending with "free-speech" and anti-censorship talking points is like ... the example case for how this thread started. The nazis and the transphobes and the hateful bigots can always, easily, spin their own takes as righteous and reasonable debate - if you let them lead the dialogue and frame their discourse through the most-appealing lenses possible. And they can make valid-sounding and appealing arguments for why you, too, should defend them and their right to speak.
But inevitably they are also going to use any and all space you clear for them to be hateful and bigoted and call for harm to other people - that is their goal. Everything else is just a setup play.
I'm literally transsexual, have transsexual friends, and don't think children should undergo gender/sex transition. that isn't an "anti-trans talking point" it's common sense backed by medical literature and scientific studies.
They repeated what they said, which is good enough reason to ban them from dozens of communities. People generally portray themselves in the least controversial light possible in these circumstances, so that's the best case scenario.
Many subreddits are the personal spaces of groups of people. Doesn't matter whether it's literally a physical house someone lives in or a metaphorical home for marginalized people. It's still their personal space. They're justified in excluding people even for trivial reasons such as liking the number 7. Blatant transphobia is an obvious reason to ban people from such spaces.
Blocking people from harassing marginalized people is not fascism. Excusing the persecution of marginalized people otoh...
You're not their doctor, they arent your patients, what business is it of yours?
ok, so if you're not a doctor you can have no opinion on healthcare now? ridiculous statement. i think healthcare should be free. i don't work in healthcare or health insurance. so am i just supposed to shut the fuck up and know my place?
no, I have my opinion and I'm going to share it and @JasSmith has his opinion and he's going to share it. that's the whole point of having discussion boards. the last thing i want is this place to become an echo chamber
kids are fickle creatures and fads catch on - all of a sudden we see a dramatic rise in kids wanting to transition - like 4400% increase in girls wanting to transition to boys. is it because we are now more accepting as a society or is it social contagion? probably both and it's a serious topic we need to address if we actually do want the best for the kids. we need to keep ideology out of healthcare and make sure each individual kid is taken care of with whatever is best for them - transitioning is not always the best option. but sometimes it is.
It's so funny to me this person don't ever seem to have the same concerns about the nose jobs, boob jobs, lip enhancements, etc that are also being done on teens AND CHILDREN. I hear nothing from you about the performance enhancing drugs for teenage boys, or the altering of the bodies of gymnasts who also start in their early childhood. In the case of the latter, they get stunted growth because the intensive amount of training affects hormones and delays puberty. Gee what other thing that you argue about sounds similar to that?
Maybe you didn't know about those things before. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But now I fully expect that you go to all of gymnastics forums where they're talking about young female gymnasts and male athletes,l and tell them that you don't think they should do those sports anymore. You're totally going to do that right? Right?
It's so funny to me this person don't ever seem to have the same concerns about the nose jobs, boob jobs, lip enhancements, etc that are also being done on teens AND CHILDREN. I hear nothing from you about the performance enhancing drugs for teenage boys, or the altering of the bodies of gymnasts who also start in their early childhood.
I mean, you don't know me, or you'd know that I also think those things are wrong. I also tell people that I think those things are wrong. Don't you?
we aren't seeing a 4000% increase in kids becoming gymnasts
it's a poignant social topic. instead of attacking my credibility, aiming to represent me as biased, you should try to attack my argument
having said that, i support kids transitioning. i'm more upset about the "wrongthink" mentality where someone can't even share their opinion without getting pounced on. he isn't sharing hate speech he's just talking
Indeed, I've been finding myself hesitant to chime in on this because I know I'm inevitably going get lumped in with transphobe Nazi facists because at some point I'm going to say "hey hang on, there's some nuance here that you're missing."
between 2009 and 2019, children being referred for transitioning treatment in the United Kingdom increased 1,000% among biological males and 4,400% among biological females.
i guess it's too much to expect people to read things
So "transition treatments" have gone up 4000% ... in the time period following the treatment becoming available. If being a gymnast was illegal until 2009, or nobody had invented a trampoline until then, you can certainly bet making it legal or possible to do floor routines would result in a 4000%+ increase in people who were openly and publically gymnasts.
Trans people, trans kids, have always existed - we just didn't have the technology to provide the treatment in that article.
That article is choosing to cite the numbers on the treatment rather than the condition because the treatment's very recent launch means it allows the presentation of a scarier number.
Sure, I can go harass people on gymnastics forums if that's what you want. But in that case it's only fair that I start harassing people on trans forums as well. I wasn't doing either of those things before, but you said I have to so I guess it's time to go bully some trans people.
I have no problem with condemning the people who push children into intensive training for competition gymnastics. And no, I don't believe them either when they argue that "the child wanted this." The parents wanted a child who fits a certain mold and the child is just trying to make their parents happy, or atleast not angry depending on how externally abusive that parent is being.
Also I absolutely support the idea of banning under 18s from getting nose jobs, boob jobs, lip fillers, taking PEDs, etc. Heck throw in piercings and tattoos as well for all I care. No procedure and no parental permission exceptions.
I mean the top comment is a guy who was banned because of his opinion on gender/sex transition… And the person you answered to expressed their opinion on that topic. Why would they talk about nose jobs or whatever? If you want to discuss these topics why not ask them about it instead of assuming their political agenda? Not saying I agree with them, but that’s not how debates work.
Ah yes the great source of the New York post. I don’t think you are being harmful on purpose but I do believe that by spreading shit like this you are harming trans people. There is no trans epidemic or social fad. That opinion is absolutely ridiculous. I have a close family member who is trans and the difficulty of even getting hormones is extreme. Multiple meetings with psychologists and endocrinologist, many exams and paperwork, not even mentioning the bureaucracy you have to deal with afterwards. And this is as an adult, transitioning as a minor is way way harder. No one just gets transitioned in an accident, and 99% don’t regret it. Now on the flip side 30-50% of trans kids want to commit suicide due to societal pressure and bullying. The only „cure“ for gender dysphoria is, shocking I know, transitioning. So when people say to protect trans kids, it’s literally protecting them from self harm or from getting attacked. Also, do you really think that more people identify as trans because it’s a „fad“ or maybe it’s because your can finally openly talk about it! It’s like saying that the rise of left handed people after them not being retrained in school anymore is a social fad. It’s a stupid opinion. Whenever you have more societal acceptance of something more people will feel safe coming out. I understand that some people are scared of their kids being transed by the woke liberal teachers but the same people also think that Obama turned the frogs gay.
Are you questioning that Chloe exists? She's been speaking at length about her de-transition because the whole experience has destroyed her body permanently. You can read about her on her Wikipedia page. It's cool to question sources, but you didn't even take a sec on Google to check if your ad hominem attack was valid.
Here is another example. Sweden went all-in on "temporary" puberty blockers for gender affirming care until children started experiencing life-long injuries. They are now effectively banned for gender affirming care for children.
In one particularly shocking case, a girl who wanted to become a boy began taking hormone-blocking drugs at just 11-years-old. Almost five years after the treatment began, the puberty-pausing drugs induced osteoporosis and permanently damaged the teen’s vertebrae, severely limiting the teen’s mobility.
“When we asked him regularly how his back felt, he said: ‘I’m in pain all the time’,” she added.
Chloe's case is a tragedy, for sure. The issue I have is that people are calling for bans rather than enhanced oversight.
Healthcare, at its core, is a numbers game. No effective treatment we've ever discovered is completely without risk. Every surgery or treatment, no matter how innocuous, could lead to complications or death. To use a recent example, the Covid vaccinations. They're considered extremely safe, and over 13 billion vaccination doses have been given to date with over 5 billion people having been vaccinated. Given that Covid kills or permanently disables 2 in every 100 unvaccinated people, and vaccines lower that rate by at least 90%, that's nearly 100 million lives that have been safeguarded by the vaccine. However, the vaccine has certainly harmed some people with extremely rare side effects. We accept that tradeoff, because saving 100 million lives is worth the risk of harming a few thousand people.
Gender affirming care for children is the same thing. We know that trans children are at extremely elevated risks of self harm and suicide, and gender affirming care is proven to be effective in preventing those outcomes. We know that some will regret their decision to transition because those cases are inevitable in any population that transitions. The focus should be on reducing the cases of regret with better screening and more oversight.
So, to debate this seriously, you need to answer the following question:
How many regretful de-transitioners are you willing to risk in order to save the lives of successful transitioners?
If the answer is zero, then you're not willing to seriously debate the use of a medical treatment and your opinion is dogmatic and carries no semantic value.
If the answer is very few, then congratulations, you're on the same side as many allies who want more funding for care and screening for trans issues.
Chloe would have likely been helped by more psychiatric care and screening, as from her story it's clear that her sexual assault as a minor precipitated a complex regarding her sexuality that was misdiagnosed as a desire to transition.
Also, do you really think that more people identify as trans because it’s a „fad“ or maybe it’s because your can finally openly talk about it
i think it's both. i don't know at what ratio, but kids really do follow fads. one kid kills themselves at a school and it raises the chances for all of them to do so. ideas are contagious. a kid that may just be going through the regular teenage angst period searching for an identity might latch onto the trans label to explain their feelings when really it's just a normal teenage thing to go through identity issues
again, i'm not trying to say kids shouldn't transition. i view transitioning as healthcare so to block kids off from it is absurd. but i think we also need to be careful and talk about the elephant in the room - that the rate of trans kids increasing so dramatically points to some issues with the ways we are doing it. when something jumps up so dramatically we should be asking questions
It’s like the prevalence of left-handedness shot up dramatically once it was socially acceptable. You can’t look at changes alone and say that things changing is a concern because it’s changing.
This is false equivalence if I've ever seen it. The treatment for left-handedness was to sit on your hand, not do a fucking life-altering permanent surgery.
The problem is that there's a very big difference between wanting a blanket ban on transition preparation and wanting the actual people involved (the trans kid, the parents, and the doctors) to do a better job of evaluating the situation and working out the best path for each case.
While your opinion may be more reasonable you should be careful to not assume they share your opinion. A lot of people don't realize that the common choice for "transition" treatments for teens does not transition them, but rather delays/suppresses puberty in such a way that they can choose which way to go at a later time. Banning this treatment forces a choice and disallows a trans person's ability to fully transition once of age.
This is an uncomfortable conversation that needs to be had, but it sadly likely won't until too many lives have been irreplaceably altered.
Now firstly, I support trans people! I support all LGBTQ+ people, and Cis Straight people, to find themselves and be themselves and accept themselves for who they are! People need to learn to love themselves and not need to change to find happiness. Trans people are unfortunately stuck in a body that doesn't match their brain so they need to change to become who they are inside. Just as everyone's fingerprints are unique, everyone's brains are unique, and sometimes the brain is so different from their sex that they need to transition to truly be themselves. But IMO not all people who say they are trans actually are, let me explain why.
People want to support minorities, and lonely people want to find a community that will support them. So some people will surely become a minority just for the social support being a minority offers, not necessarily because they actually are that minority but they may convince themselves that is the case even if they aren't. But the issue is there's no easy way to know who's who in this situation, and it's arguably not our business to challenge them in their personal decisions. These are lonely people who need people to hear them and be their friends regardless of what they choose to do, and people who preach anti-trans arguments often aren't able to do that and instead are very hateful.
People today are lonely, in large part because of social media's affect on our psych. And what support is there for straight cisgender people? Essentially none. Especially white straight cisgender people who are practically seen as the "bad guys" throughout history (Which isn't necessarily an unfair assessment considering what Europe has historically done to basically everyone (including each other for that matter) but that was largely the actions of the wealthy few again). Why do so many kids and adults commit suicide? Where's the support network for people who need it regardless of minority/majority status? Real life social networks are dying. I'm sure there is some support, but it's not as visible to those who need it.
There's a conversation that needs to be had which is being shutdown because of the "look everyone a bigot(!)" mentality that bringing this up has. However, there's no simple way I can see to really separate that honest discussion from those who do want to ban the practice entirely, so it's understandable why the reaction is the way it is. It really is a shitshow from all sides. (Transitioning should not be banned BTW in case I haven't made it clear that that's my position.)
I think that some kids should be allowed to transition, based on their physicians and families assessments of the situation. But in the end it's not my business if someone believes they truly need to transition to be happy. I do think currently too many are transitioning because it's become the new social fad like being goth or emo, though perhaps I'm wrong. But if I'm right than it's a lot harder to reverse being trans, if it's possible at all.
Personally, I'm just dropping the subject IRL because of the reaction that happens after any mention of that honest concern comes out.
I expect someone will say I'm a bigot just for this comment showing any concern at all that too many people think they're trans and are harming themselves long term. My goal is the largest amount of happy people who love themselves as possible. And sometimes in trying to do that society inadvertently causes some people unnecessary suffering as I'm sure is the case here, but there's nothing we can really do about it, it is what it is. So just love everyone and accept everyone and do your own thing. Things will work out for most people in the end if you just accept people and don't worry about things. Which is what I try to do.
I have opinions on when and how children should be allowed to access cigarettes, alcohol, and motorcycles. Are those opinions also boring, unnecessary, and entitled?
The medical opinion backed up by doctors and the majority of the medical community used to be that alcohol for minors was fine and that cigarettes were good for you.
The medical community is perfectly capable of being wrong and prescribing societal dogma over anything else.
You’re dismissing all of modern medicine there, which IMO is even worse. Knowledge might change, but until it does, we have to follow the current state of science. Otherwise we’re back to guesswork.
No, I'm dismissing the idea that the "medical consensus" is unquestionable truth.
If questioning the medical consensus was always wrong then we'd still believe that handwashing was a waste of time, and cigarettes would probably be lauded as a way to resist the miasma.
When the consensus changed to say that cigarettes and underage drinking are bad, that didn't overthrow the idea that handwashing is still good. And when the consensus changes to say that the modern approach to transitioning has caused more harm than help, that won't overthrow the idea that underage drinking and cigarettes are still bad.
Questioning the medical consensus is ok, as long as you're a medical researcher with a study to show that there's a problem. I don't get the feeling that you are.
Laypeople are perfectly happy to give baseless opinions on my actual field of expertise, only fair I return the favor on other fields. Also how do you propose we get a study which shows the problem if you aren't allowed to ask the question which prompts the study until after the study is done?
Besides, when societal dogma is driving more than anything else then the only expertise you need is to be a member of that society. And nobody can deny me that qualification.
I'm in software development. If people give uneducated opinions, we all have a laugh and move on. In medicine, people die when this happens. This is not comparable.
That's a fun way of admitting that you have absolutely no qualifications regarding medicine. The only thing you can do here is point at the dogmatic opinion and pretend that there's nothing wrong with letting social pressure silence any uncomfortable questions.
In society we routinely have opinions about things which don't affect us personally. We have opinions about murder, for example, and we made it illegal. None of my family have been murdered before. I'm neither a police officer nor a judge nor criminologist. I'm the least qualified person in the room to have an opinion on this, and yet, democracy gives me that right. I choose to continue to vote to make murder illegal because I think it is immoral.
Likewise, I think it is immoral to do this to children:
In one particularly shocking case, a girl who wanted to become a boy began taking hormone-blocking drugs at just 11-years-old. Almost five years after the treatment began, the puberty-pausing drugs induced osteoporosis and permanently damaged the teen’s vertebrae, severely limiting the teen’s mobility.
“When we asked him regularly how his back felt, he said: ‘I’m in pain all the time’,” she added.
I get why subs that consider themselves safe spaces for trans folk would ban you for that.
Transitions are Never done willy nilly. Several doctors and psychologists will be in contact with that person before. If they agree it is fine, as Healthcare professionals, then it must be that forcing the person to stay their birth gender will do more harm
Lmao, yeah you deserved to have your trash take "censored". Gender affirming care saves lives, and has a less than 1% "regret rate". For reference, knee replacements have about a 15% rate. Shocking how trans-inclusive spaces don't want transphobes around.
I think the problem with your opinion is that it conveys that you believe children are being throw into surgery rooms and given sex transitions loosely and without thought to the consequences.
I think your real opinion is that you believe children shouldn't be given unnecessary surgeries. If that is true, the large majority of the population would agree with you.
In addition, have you explored what Doctors believe is a necessary sex transition for a child? What are those parameters? If you don't know, then I would consider your original stance to be of ignorance. Since you really never dive into the subject, most people will assume that you haven't explored those parameters and don't understand the reasoning behind them. That is why you're facing aggression with your opinion.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the consensus among the medical and scientific communities is that you are wrong. They are the experts here, not you. At some point, blindly repeating falsehoods based on prejudice stops being an avenue for constructive debate and instead just wastes everybody's time and makes people angry for no reason.
You're advocating against life-saving treatments. Of course you're going to get shit on.
I’m so glad I signed up on Beehaw where I can flip my app to local only and makes these dog whistling conservative bigots disappear. It’s wonderful. I also never see any downvotes.
fascism doesnt play fair in the marketplace of ideas, if you invite a nazi to sit at your table you've made it a nazi table. free speech is necessary and important, but we still draw lines for things like defamation and hate speech. another line is not offering a platform to fascists, they arent entitled to a seat at the table to spread fud.
you're like "but i'm not a nazi" , great, let's keep it that way.
Importantly, "free speech" is about government, not privately owned spaces.
We believe the government should not be given the power to censor speech, because people are born into it without a choice. Governments could use this power nefariously, and their citizens would have no meaningful recourse.
Nobody is born into Reddit or kbin or Lemmy. If someone doesn't like the rules of a given instance, they are welcome to leave and free themselves of this burden.
It certainly doesn't. It's just that alt rtght absolutely abuses good will and rules to the extreme and systematically hijacks certain phrases.
See Elon Musk's Twitter as a light example (giving in to authoritarian censorship, and skewing content visibility, while constantly touting himself a "Free speech absolutist"), or the_donald from Reddit, which was mostly made of bots, conspiracy theorists and some sane, but malicious people, banning anyone who's even slightly misaligned.
Some people like the previous commenter are then incorrectly shortcutting hijacked slogans to the alt right. Which was their goal to start with - increasing the friction, uncertainty and division.
To elaborate about free speech we want to mantain sensible environment. So we need to give a boot to astroturfing bots and far, far right neonazis. Though as with most things, moderation is the key.
Elon's acquisition of Twitter serves as an insightful case study of how a corporate CEO can turn what used to be a diverse, tolerant, and bountiful community of netizens with no home for hate speech and misinformation into a sad capitalist bloodbath.
Please take note, Huffman. And please take note, the internet in general.
Yes, but the "censorship" and "freedoms" they talk about isn't about malicious censorship (I.e. Spez going around quietly editing dissenting comments) or freedom about how our content is used (I.e. Reddit refusing to let people delete their comments).
Their version is about spreading misinformation and hate speech of all kinds, alongside racist and facist ideologies unfiltered and unimpeded. They're malicious actors acting like victims.
We don't want any of that, we want all folks to feel welcome, which is why we have to shoot that down. To maintain a tolerant society, we must only be intolerant of the intolerant.
I always say that there is no paradox of tolerance, because tolerance doesn't work that way.
It's not a wide open door. No tolerance is a compact. It's a peace treaty. A social contract that can be violated, and those who violate it can then be excluded from it until they stop being hateful idiots.
Going to bring it up again, the Paradox of Tolerance disappears when you consider tolerance a social contract rather than a moral standard.
Nazis base their identity and politics around not tolerating the presence of various minorities, and therefore aren't entitled to tolerance themselves.
TERFs base their identity and politics areound not tolerating trans people, and therefore aren't entitled to tolerance themselves.
Furries don't base their identity on excluding, invalidating or persecuting someone else, so furries are entitled to tolerance.
So, the furry boards stay but we need to defederate Nazis and TERFs.
There's always going to be some fuzzy edge cases, unfortunately. When tolerance becomes such an important and powerful thing it will become easily weaponized and subject to misinterpretation, deliberate or otherwise.
Oh yeah, but honestly if we can just keep the big troublemakers out and set a line in the sand we can put up with the fuzzy edge cases. It would also be necessary to consider tolerance a concept that goes beyond interpersonal interaction. Like, okay, this guy is civil but what he's saying is that genocide is okay. Or, okay, this guy is rubbing me the wrong way but at its core "Archer is a better Captain than Sisko"* is not fundamentally about race, it could honestly be he just prefers Archer.
*Sisko is a better Captain than Archer, this is fact. But sometimes people are just wrong and that's okay.
Archer's problem is that he's weak, kind of cowardly, and a bully. I watched the whole series, but you only need watch Cogenitor to see it. Even Lorca would've kept a promise to one of his crew.
Sisko did some stuff we can argue about, but he has the courage to make the choice according to his principles. I can't put Archer in Sisko's situations and see him coming out better.
Also, Sisko punched Q. Knowing FULLY who Q was. Nothing can detract from punching Q.
That's another thing they'll tell you, to add to your point. They'll say general society, or lefties, are unwelcoming hypocrits for expressing the need for inclusion while not including fascists.
They'll word the same opinions in a million ways until they find the way that gets you to allow them to continue blabbering intolerant bull crap.
It's true, those types will use your own rules against you to wipe you out if you let them. It's one of the oldest tricks in the playbook of bad faith arguments.
I bet you we'll see a version of that very argument with the Fediverse when Meta brings "Threads" onto the scene. They'll preach inclusion then use the old EEE tactic to kill us off.
That's the Paradox, they use tolerance to fill the space with intolerance.
I said it in a comment below and I'll write it out again because it is a great point (that I have seen several times on Mastodon, not that I thought up on my own) that the only way to resolve the Paradox of Tolerance is to understand tolerance as a social contract.
Nazis start from not adhering to the contract, because they refuse to tolerate certain identities. TERFS refuse to tolerate trans identities. Neither the Nazi nor the TERF viewpoint is entitled to tolerance. Compare to Furries, who have no problem with non-furry identities but are often not welcomed because they are so very very strange. Tolerance is for furries, not nazis.
I once said in the World News subreddit during the initial days of Russia invading Ukraine "fuck Russia. Also fuck China" and made it clear I was talking about their governments, and was banned. I also commented in Old School Cool subreddit a benign mention that OP's mom was attractive and got banned. I also told the mods of another subreddit that allowed comments on how to encourage violence at drag shows (can't remember where now) they were fascist pieces of shit, no mincing of words, and literally had an account ban from reddit due to too many strikes.
I can tell fascists and tankies here to go fuck themselves here consistently without fear of reprisal by a fat unemployed useless mentally retarded moderator on a power trip.
Wow, the only reasonable comment talking about "censorship" in this thread.
Another example I can think of is when the CCP announced that they were going to put restrictions on depicting "feminine men" in media, so I went to r/GenshinImpact to see the riots that would unfold from having their femboys taken away. there was a post about it that appeared on google but had been removed, so I went on there using removeddit and found several with over 3k upvotes each that had all been removed, undoubtedly by the mods shilling for the Chinese government.
I completely disagree with your views here but completely support your right to say it. Why's it so hard to allow people to simply speak to one another without some uppity censor-happy/ban-happy authoritarian fuckwits getting in the way and preventing conversation?
Reddit was filled with a special brand of retards always trying to police language always acting smug about taking about some weird moral high road it is exhausting to deal with. People irl dont have such tight asses about speech. And permabanning someone for having an opinion you dont agree with is an abuse of power (not like it matters much to people who are so zealous about policing public morality). Obviously dont be a shitter and start spouting off trump supporters special brand of koolaid but if you feel like trans women should not compete with biological women in professional womens sports then you are free to think that way.
Using the word “retard” as a derogatory term is pretty offensive to those born with developmental defects. It’s similar to how we used to use “gay” in a similar way a few decades ago. It’s pretty shitty.
you are free to feel that way but the mods are not free to ban me for my shitty vocab. they can just call me an asshole and move on like every other website
You are entirely in control of what you say.. but it sounds like what you meant is not in line with what you're saying.
Do you deliberately want to belittle people with developmental issues? It doesn't sound like it. I think what @Dr_Cog is trying to say is that you should consider lining up the words you use with the message you're actually trying to convey.
Do you deliberately want to belittle people with developmental issues
no one is attacking people with developmental disabilities by calling something retarded if you want to take it that way your are free to do so its your opinion not mine and even if you try to twist my words to suit your fucked up narrative i know what i mean and thats what matters to me
I’m honestly sure you don’t mean “retarded” as a personal attack against people with developmental disabilities.
There’s also a very long history of people using that exact same word to attack them. Many people who make arguments like yours, that they should still get to use the word, tend to also be prejudiced against these people and treat them poorly. Maybe you’re not like that, but using that word does make you look a lot more like these people.
You making an argument to try to keep using the word, even though it hurts people, essentially tells them “I will not change one word in my vocabulary to accommodate your feelings and history of being hurt by this word.” Your choice on if you want to change your words to in an effort to get people to interpret you in a way that better matches your intent, or if you’d like to stick to your guns even if it means lots of people will get hurt. After all, people are free to interpret words however they wish, including in ways that you don’t intend them to and ways you don’t mean. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people affected by this word to not want you in their communities if you want to keep using that word, at least if they didn’t promise you absolute freedom of speech.
Hey if the mods want to remove folks like me so be it. Do i make extensive use of such slurs in my day to day vocabulary? (Not really) i mainly want to test the waters and see how hard the mods and the community comes down on me for it. Can i speak like normal or will i have to sing song dance around subjects like on reddit.
If we're to start declaring how people speak, can all you word nazis please start cracking down on those people who use the Q slur to refer to LGBT people? it's a literal slur, has been used to attack and harm large portions of the community, yet people will happily broadcast it.
I feel that's a better use of time than pushing offense over the word "retard" which ultimately doesn't hurt anyone and hasn't been used to hurt anyone.
Technically depends on the instance. The Fediverse supports free expression in the sense that you can spin up your own instance and say whatever you want. Flip side, any other instance can de-federate with your instance if they don’t want to listen to your BS^1.
For instance, my instance^2 would probably police my ability to use slurs. Which is fine. I certainly am a member of some groups for which slurs exist, and if some asshole started spewing that BS in my house, I would express myself by kicking them the f*ck out. Likewise I chose an instance where I can be comfortable, and not have to deal with being harassed for who I just happen to be. My choice of an instance is largely founded on its Code of Conduct. In exchange, I extend the same courtesy to others on my instance.
It’s almost like a social contract…
Anyway, point being, as a consequence of different instances having different Codes of Conduct (even if just minor changes), you will technically be bound by both the CoC of your home instance and the home instance of the community/magazine.
Speaking as someone with a speech impediment, using the word "the" is super offensive to me. It's basically a slur. If you don't stop using it immediately, I have no choice but to report you for being a Nazi.
That’s sounds tough. You should probably not report people for generally benign speech, though, just because you personally find it offensive. Have you tried simply informing others of your problem with this language?
I would say that "retard" is less offensive than the Q slur used to refer to LGBT people. You say there's a problem with calling stuff "gay" whereas I'm actually same sex attracted and have no issue with that. THe bigger issue is the Q slur.
if you're gonna just say "well my dictation of language is the only one that matters!" then you're just being an authoritarian fascist nazi and are literally the problem.
In my experience, the people ranting about "free speech" the loudest are the most flagrant violators of the "my right to move my arms ends at your nose" maxim.
ehhhh..... I think it says a lot about a person if they don't care about free speech, or the encroaching censorship from the rich 1%ers. That's literally the entire appeal of stuff like the fediverse.
If you want a strong crackdown on speech, then go back to reddit?
Thank you for posting this here. Really heartwarming to receive so much kindness.
Let's be optimistic for the future of Internet communities. Technology evolves and puts more power into the hands of the users. Excited to see what's next.
This is your app? You're awesome dude, RiF was the only way I browsed reddit on my phone. Thank you for the years of joy and I wish you success in all your future endeavors.
Glad to share it! Thank you so much for your hard work, I cannot overstate how much I loved your app. I'm sure you've been getting this bunch but seriously the experience on Reddit is fun was what made Reddit. I have barely used it ever on a computer and have never really experienced it any other way. It is by far the number one used to have on my phone and losing access to it is losing access to Reddit for me. I'd love to know about any other projects that you're working on because the quality and simplicity of your product was what made the experience so great all these years!
Jumping on the bandwagon here. Sad to see the current state lead to the end of RiF. The app has been a huge part of my internet addiction. Thank you for all the years of development and patience.
Rif was reddit for me. It was how I accessed it 99.9% of the time. By far the most used app on all my phones for more than a decade. I'm extremely sad that this is how it dies, but all things must end, it seems. Rest in peace old friend. And rot in pieces reddit, for killing the best goddamned app I've ever used...
100% agree. It was the only way I viewed Reddit for 11 years.
The day that pop-up appeared saying it was shutting down I set all the (small) subs I moderated to private, deleted my account, and came on over here. What a fucking shame.
Yes, I'm sure Apollo was great, but I never even knew it existed until this whole fiasco, because I jumped to RIF when it was still "Reddit Is Fun" and never looked back, because it did everything I needed, perfectly.
Word. As an Android user, Apollo wasn't on my radar. Christian certainly made a name for himself throughout all of this - he was a phenomenal David against Reddit's Goliath, but I RiF was the backbone of my Reddit experience and will be dearly missed. Excited to see what apps for kbin rise from the ashes of Reddit.
I’ve used both RIF (10-15 years ago) and Apollo (last 8 years or so). They are and were light years ahead of the official app. At this point I’m just like, “OK, bye bitch” with Reddit.
I used RIF, Boost, and Apollo. Whatever. I'll try anything once.
We didn't hear from RIF or Boost as much because I think they thought reddit was negotiating in good faith, and they would come to a compromise that didn't shut down their app. That was never in the plan for reddit, and they lost a few weeks of talking to people about what was happening.
I used Apollo the last years, but I had an Android before that and used RiF, I‘m sad about both and sad about the death of all the others I never used too. Reddit has lost me as a user forever and hope they enjoy their corporate curated ad experience over there. Goodbye to all the talented devs, may their next projects be even more successful.
I'm sure I had it many years before this image from 2016 - it's always had a place on my home screen since the original Galaxy Tab 1. (which is still going today as an SMS device at a radio station.)
FTFY. The only time I didn't, was when I was accessing it for work, or when somebody sent me a Reddit link after the company started infesting all mobile web users with that app-only bullshit. :(
Same for me. I originally downloaded some rage comics app on a Galaxy Gio which basically just pulled from f7u12 (remember those days lol). I kept seeing references to reddit and went and downloaded the first app I could find. 11 years later RIF has been my most used app on every device and I'm gonna miss it
As soon as I heard RIF was shutting down I left reddit altogether. I don't have strong feelings about the official app one way or the other but the way in which the execs at reddit decided to handle this situation was more than enough to get me to move.
the conversation should never be about reddit losing, it's about the users winning. And I personally feel like I won. I showed my support for Christian and 3rd party apps, I abondoned ship quickly and I've found a new home on the fediverse.
I also stopped using facebook and instagram 18 months ago. They both still exist, but I won. I'm happier now without it. Job done.
This is the mindset people should be having. Reddit is gonna be fine regardless of all this, and time will only tell if the Fediverse becomes big enough to be a competitor as a social media platform.
Truthfully, I was on the fence of leaving Reddit because of how much I didn’t like the hivemind there on the majority of subs. I still go on there for my niche and specific communities that aren’t on the Fediverse, but I pretty much just lurk there once every so often instead of actively participate - I instead actively participate on the Fediverse because the community is genuinely waaaaaay better than Reddit’s community ever was, even with the FOSS app gatekeepers here.
the conversation should never be about reddit losing, it's about the users winning.
if only. Lotta people really thought they could make reddit worried and that if they rebelled enough they could fix reddit. If it wasn't going to work after that 2-3 day blackout, it wasn't going to work. The mod in that article said it best:
“More than a month has passed, and as things on the internet go, the passion for the protest has waned and people’s attention has shifted to other things,” an r/aww moderator wrote in a post about the rule change.
And yeah, attention span on the internet is low. If you can't fix, it's best to start rebuilding what you want elsewhere. The best time for a backup community was 5 years ago; the second best time is now, so we don't have this problem of "where do we go from Reddit?" in another 5 years. If more people had the courage to leave, it may have ended in a better protest than these attempts to ruin the IPO or whatever.
Better to play the long game for now. This won't be the last drama, and it's simply better to make sure any jank is fixed for the next time people get frustrated and seek greener pastures. That slow burn is how we create a proper platform.
"Site I only still care about to laugh at thinks I am going to give it my tax information." I'll have to think real hard about that one.
Investors should themselves have a good think about how the CEO that self-reported making zero profit in over a decade as one of the most popular social media sites — a site whose ad revenue has stuttered in the face of what is officially a month long protest — can afford to be handing out money to shitposting bot farms now.
I don't know, while I won't be going back there, I can see it help make reddit more mainstream, by attracting influencers. Imagine IG Influencers or Youtubers encouraging people to engage with them personally on reddit. I can see it actually working out alright for Reddit and possibly a small number of already successful influencers and celebrities. I don't see it making the experience any better for the average redditor, though
I can see it help make reddit more mainstream, by attracting influencers. Imagine IG Influencers or Youtubers encouraging people to engage with them personally on reddit.
…please like this post and friend me, and ring that bell. Oh man, you’re right, they’re going to go the tickytocky YouTube route.
There definitely were personalities on Reddit, like poem_for_your_sprog, who gained a following. I could see sprog making appreciable money with the proposed system.
Teah but it's not like the predominant mode of the website and it's not the same kind of like cult of personality you get with youtube creators. Poem for your sprog is like a novel little thing you randomly run into on the site and are like, ah cute. But if that kinda gimmicky shit was all the site revolved around it would for sure not be the same place anymore and I think it would lose a lot of people.
u/SchnoodleDoodleDo in the r/aww community (known for their cute animal perspective poems) was another. I could see all their upvotes being worth something.
The moderators were recently contacted by u/ModCodeofConduct, who had this to say:
We noticed you recently marked your community NSFW. This action is likely to confuse your community members, as people subscribe to communities based on the content at the time of subscription. This is a violation of the Mod Code of Conduct rule 2.
While we recognize communities can gradually change as they grow, when your content suddenly changes from generally safe for work to sexually explicit, it harms the community members.
While we can see you haven't taken the step of approving sexually explicit content, we need to separate your community from the communities that abruptly become NSFW and post sexually explicit content, situations in which we immediately take action. Please correct the NSFW marking on your subreddit so that we can separate your community from those violating sitewide rules.
Thank you.
As subscribers to r/PICS are aware, the moderators here have worked very hard to ensure that the community adheres to every mandate and message that Reddit has surfaced. Unfortunately, we were unable to state as much to u/ModCodeofConduct, as they disabled the ability for us reply.
We do not wish Reddit to think that we have ignored their attempt at contact (which would be very rude of us), so we will be offering our response here. We apologize for locking the thread, but as Reddit has yet to answer our previous letter, we are operating under the assumption that it went unseen amongst other comments.
We appreciate your concerns regarding r/PICS being marked as NSFW, and we hope that you will be reassured by our response. In short, the shift in question was not a sudden change, nor is there any risk of users being confused… and most important of all, an abrupt reversion would itself constitute a violation of the site-wide rules that you cited.
On June 16th, 2023, r/PICS (then r/Pics) asked its subscribers to vote on the state of the subreddit, and they overwhelmingly decided to feature only “images of John Oliver looking sexy.” On June 20th, 2023, a second poll was held, and it was determined that “any and all media featuring John Oliver” would be allowed. This also precipitated a change in the subreddit’s name from “/r/Pics” to “/r/PICS,” with the latter being an acronym for “Posts Illuminating Comedian’s Sexiness.”
As we moderated r/PICS, however, we discovered that large amounts of profanity and offensive content – both of which are listed as NSFW by Reddit’s policies – were present in non-NSFW threads. This was problematic, as users expecting work-safe experiences were very likely to encounter non-work-safe material. Rather than abruptly alter our rules without first consulting the community (which would have confused users), we asked on June 26th, 2023 for subscribers to refrain from offering any NSFW content in non-NSFW threads.
We also requested a response from Reddit on that same date.
By July 3rd, 2023, the amount of profanity and offensive content in r/PICS had not declined, and Reddit had not responded to us. It was publicly announced that we had no choice but to mark the subreddit as being NSFW, so as to adhere to Reddit’s own mandates. It was also made clear that our longstanding rules – rules which should have seen r/Pics (in any form) being a NSFW community from the get-go – would be unchanged; that neither gore nor pornography would be allowed, but that tasteful nudity, profanity, and “offensive” content would continue to be acceptable. To reiterate, while we do celebrate a British comedian’s undeniable allure, we do not allow anything sexually explicit to be posted.
Our surfaced resources – our sidebar, our rules, our wiki, and our announcements – make all of this exceptionally clear, but since Reddit provides no method by which users can be required to read said resources before participating, the visible marking of r/PICS as NSFW is vital to establishing reasonable expectations. Furthermore, as Reddit assures its partners that their advertisements will not run alongside profanity or offensive content, the aforementioned marking is also in said partners’ best interests. That same assurance indicates that moderators “set their own standards for conduct and ‘appropriate’ content,” indicating that r/PICS is solely responsible for determining what is and is not offensive (and policing accordingly). A failure on our part to appropriately list r/PICS as NSFW would therefore run counter to what advertisers have been told.
We do understand that the shift may have caused some minor issues for Reddit, however, and as we have no desire to harm the platform, we are more than willing to discuss the situation with you. Please respond to our previous request for communication, and we will look forward to exploring productive paths forward. In the meantime, to ensure that r/PICS is adhering to all of Reddit’s guidelines and requests, we would be happy to revert the NSFW setting, restrict posting, and remove any and all content that could be considered “offensive” by anyone. If this compromise does not meet with your approval, please offer a publicly visible comment in response to our open letter. We understand that you are likely very busy, so we will wait until Friday, July 7th before taking any additional steps.
In the meantime, to ensure that r/PICS is adhering to all of Reddit’s guidelines and requests, we would be happy to revert the NSFW setting, restrict posting, and remove any and all content that could be considered “offensive” by anyone.
Hmm. So they are superficially giving in, they won't keep NSFW on to avoid ads money for reddit. But by going restricted, and going after all "offensive" content (could I read that to mean all John Oliver content? i.e. all content since the protests started) they stand to cause a massive drop in traffic to the sub, which should still hurt the bottom line.
This is exactly what they're gonna do. I'd love to see them implement something like what /r/politicalhumor did and set up automod to react to user comments. So for example, if anyone says "the is offensive" it deletes the post and bans the user
Note the statement to remove any and all offensive content. If they're still going the malicious compliance route, they're implying they're going to nuke the sub.
Reddit will replace the mods with those friendly to Admins/Spez and revert back to the way the sub was run prior to the blackout and malicious compliance. This is unfortunately, the only way it's going to end now.
Replace the mods with who? Reddit doesn't have an endless supply of compliant free labor they can just assign willy-nilly to whatever subs they desire. Especially now that the masks are off about what Reddit admins really think about moderators.
I'm giving the most plausible scenario. They don't need a mod from r/pics to take over; they can use anyone who is power hungry enough to do the job.
Not saying I like it, or agree with it, just giving the most plausible option for Reddit to take at this point.
Because, let's be clear about this, Reddit is winning this battle even if they won't win the war. This overall event spells the end of the site as we know it...or knew it. The malicious compliance, changing to NSFW, the broad interpretation of the rules...it doesn't matter. Reddit is going to win this, or appear to win this in the short term, even if it entirely kills their future. They'll kill a 20 million subscriber subreddit to do it if they need to.
And I'm pointing out how this "most plausible scenario" ends in ruin for Reddit. If Reddit's most popular subs are being run by people whose literally only qualification for the role is that they are power hungry, what kind of subreddit will those end up being? The mods won't be doing anything to cultivate the quality of the place, they likely won't even know what "quality" is. They'll just come up with a bunch of rules to enforce, throwing their weight around pointlessly and alienating anyone who sticks around long enough to interact with them. They probably won't even be good "janitor" moderators because proper janitoring is a lot of hard work that doesn't necessarily result in you receiving the sort of adulation that a power-hungry person would actually crave. Why spend hours dealing with meaningless spam that only bots will see you blocking when you get more of a thrill from bossing around people who slipped up on some technicality or rule that you implemented primarily so that people would slip up on them?
And if the admins try ordering you to do the spam-patrol grunt work with the threat of kicking you out, well, you don't actually care. They're not paying you and you have no interest in the community itself. Rinse and repeat.
1- Their threats aren't actually working, and they don't have enough quality mods to replace the ones they've overthrown (as evidenced by subs where the mod teams were nuked remaining frozen)
2- PR move to pretend like they're listening and reduce anger.
Seriously, what is the point of this attempt AFTER they've nuked so many mods and users?
Edit: I feel like this comment is right on the money
wasure_boshi
better yet, they will listen but only in "small groups" of people "they pick" as to curate the the overall mod "response" and then will claim that all mods across all communities will share this same slated opinion.
I agree. This is a) a PR move and b) part of their “divide and conquer” strategy: They’ll keep on schmoozing the mods who go along with Reddit’s bullshit and keep on kicking out mods who aren’t.
Has to be #1, or I think they would have replaced the mods on /r/pics by now. They’ve silently removed mods from other big subs without much, if any justification already, so them not doing it in this case makes me think something is wrong.
RedditMigration
Popular
Esta revista es de un servidor federado y podría estar incompleta. Explorar más contenido en la instancia original.