133 upvotes, 8 direct replies (showing 8)
View submission: Defending the open Internet (again): Our latest brief to the Supreme Court
So Reddit, who blocked all non-official client apps, and then meddled in the management of supposedly autonomous communities on their platform, is touting an open Internet?
I'm a bit confused.
Comment by turkeypedal at 22/02/2024 at 01:24 UTC*
48 upvotes, 1 direct replies
The two concepts are not the same, even though they use similar terminology. Reddit does not have an open API. But they are part of an open Internet that allows them to control their own site.
Just because someone doesn't give you access to their stuff for free doesn't mean they don't still have freedom of speech. Two different types of free.
Do note this is not commending what Reddit did. I still think it was shady AF. But what Reddit does with its own site has no bearing on whether the Internet as a whole is open. The concept is more closely related to Net Neutrality.
Comment by h0nest_Bender at 21/02/2024 at 21:45 UTC
36 upvotes, 3 direct replies
I'm a bit confused.
They're fighting for an internet that's open to their censorship.
Comment by BlackScienceManTyson at 21/02/2024 at 23:47 UTC
9 upvotes, 1 direct replies
who blocked all non-official client apps
Narwhal exists. They didn't do this at all.
Comment by The_Critical_Cynic at 21/02/2024 at 23:00 UTC
15 upvotes, 2 direct replies
I'm surprised I had to scroll this far down to see this comment. I was thinking basically the same thing. They don't want someone dictating to them how it is that they run their platform and moderate it's content, but will dictate to it volunteers who actually do the bulk of the leg work how it is that the site is run and moderated.
Comment by attero_ at 21/02/2024 at 21:47 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Hypocrisy will be upheld until morale improves.
^fick^dich^spez
Comment by zenethics at 22/02/2024 at 02:09 UTC
6 upvotes, 1 direct replies
It's not confusing. Making changes to accommodate this will be expensive for them and, while it aligns with the views of reddit's founders, free speech has become counter-cultural.
IMO, Reddit's policy is fine for bespoke topics or subreddits about public personalities where those persons have moderation rights.
But who should have moderation privileges over broad topics like /r/politics or /r/science?
For every example like the /r/StarTrek example I can cite 10 where someone was banned for expressing a simple political opinion. This leads to the kinds of bubbles that people refer to when they say social media is destroying the country.
I'd like to see a change where subreddits whose names appear in a dictionary have a standardized set of moderation rules that is basically "you must obey the law."
Short of that, I hope they lose.
Citing the 1A to shut down speech seems pretty perverse, legal arguments aside.
Comment by BlackScienceManTyson at 21/02/2024 at 20:54 UTC
-19 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Maybe don't hold thousands of communities hostage next time you want to free load off the reddit API
Comment by No_Gur_277 at 23/02/2024 at 12:18 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Nothing u/traceroo?