I don't see 95% of that there.
The chance of this behaviour getting addressed is microscopic while these incentives remain as they are.
So it's rational for them to not look in the first place. If they don't know, then they're not technically lying. This is good for them, but nobody else.
Most questions are about the Tencent investment. Huffman's response:
> Our governance didn't change during this round, which means we didn't add anyone to the board, and our policies won't be changing either.
The statement that their policies aren't changing means nothing because it's what they would say regardless of the situation. Including if it's 100% true.
Perhaps nothing concrete are to come out from this investment (besides its performance), but it is an opportunity cost, and IF the opportunities aligns where one day Tencent able to act/pressure Reddit, it is already a win on multiple levels.
That has more to do with the Chinese box office being a 9 billion a year market than it does Chinese investors.
[Substantiation needed to show that marketing materials for films can be changed that quickly]
It's a poster. You take it to a printing press and ask for a few thousand new ones, it's NBD. If they didn't already have several alternate designs from before they selected this one, it's like an hour of mucking around in adobe CS to make Finn smaller and droids bigger, less if you have the original images on hand.
The Force Awakens:
US Box: $937M
Foreign Box: $1.132M
Chinese Box: $124M
The Black Panther:
US Box: $700M
Foreign Box: $647M
Chinese Box: $105M
The Black Panther outperformed in China compared to The Force Awakens as a % of it's domestic box office and as a % of it's total foreign box office.
I'd imagine they might have just seen Princess Leia/Han Solo as more recognizable on the posters for an audience that might not be into Star Wars as much as other audiences seem to be.
I’m sure China features plenty of movies featuring evil Chinese people.
As a German, it became somewhat tiresome in the 80s, although we obviously still deserved it (and much more). Then 9/11 got others into the hot seat for a decade.
This being fiction, any decision to give your villains some distinct national or ethnic identity seems suspect. I guess it’s fine, or at least necessary, I’d the fabric of the plot (Godfather, or that series where Hitler had won WW2). But if it just serves to tell apart good and bad guys by their accent (Die Hard), it seems like entirely unnecessary vilification.
I wonder if their compliance policy changed, or if the requesting parties just got better at making actionable requests, or something else?
I agree the frontpage and r/all is a cesspool.
The trend is towards worse though with pretty much everything they do lately.
No it is not. Stop using literally so liberally.
Even HN is extremely impersonal, and while the moderation and content is significantly better than most alternatives, I still often feel like it mainly adds FOMO typed stress to my with little value gained in return.
I mean, even if we end up having an interesting conversation in this thread, we’ll probably never speak again. That’s not really a good form of interaction is it?
At least Reddit’s redesign made it easy to quit.
The transparency I would like are three rules:
1) New policy statement: All subreddits must state moderation rules in their side bar.
2) New technical consistency: Open moderation logs for all subreddits.
3) New feature: An open log of moderation complaints for each subreddit. Each complaint costs the submitter $1 (or some reputation?) to avoid spam and most thoughtless complaints.
This requires very little from Reddit:
Changes (2) and (3) only require technical changes, no personnel intervention.
Change (1) Is a policy change, but only requires manual work from Reddit after high technical thresholds:
1a) When moderation complaint logs see a lot of submissions relative to subreddit activity, a warning is automatically sent to the moderators whose moderation is subject to complaints.
1b) Only when a moderator has received several warnings, will someone need to review the complaints, the moderation log and decide if a moderator should be removed, get a personal warning, given a clean slate with regard to past complaints, or no action.
1c) If three or more moderators for the same subreddit have to be removed due to consistent violation of the stated policy, then the subreddit can be closed.
The point of all this is:
* Users no longer have to deal with deceptive moderation.
* Users do most of the oversight, Reddit takes on very little extra work.
* Subreddits that spend a lot of time trying to police moderators of related sites can stop. Either there was no problem, it will clear up, or it will be dealt with.
* Reddit becomes more useful to everyone except deceptive moderators.
Subreddits are absolutely owned by the top mod, originally whoever created them. It gets very political but I think your suggestions will just open up an avenue for aggressive takeovers of subreddits.
If someone built a subreddit I think they should be free to do what they want with it. It is authoritarian and causes drama, but not nearly as much drama as if it was democratized and transparent. Bad faith actors can manufacture crises constantly to take over a subreddit. It's happened already.
I don't care about how many times the government requests data from Reddit, I care about what Reddit keeps about me in the first place.
There are some rather notable examples of that in the past even though they somewhat escape my mind right now, but I believe there was a case of a moderator using the power to mod in order to suppress mention of some rival product, just as one example. I think there have also been quite notable instances of whole threads just being "nuked" where pages and pages of comments are simply deleted, sometimes due to corporate or even founder ego reasons ... spez
I get that some things, especially illegal things and even things like doxing or real spam need to be removed, but that does not mean that just because something is removed by dictate of mods or admins, it should never ben seen again or invisible to anyone. Make the unapproved thoughts that are not illegal visible to users, maybe even classify them based on the reason for mod/admin flagging, i.e., spam, wrongthink, etc. It would serve to keep mods and admins ethical and accountable and... transparent.
I think it is a rather significant and overlooked issue. Sure you don't want, e.g., one political group being able to spam another, but that doesn't mean that retaining such an event and the comments, just alone for their scientific and historical reasons, is not rather valuable.
There is also another even more significant reason, the pareto effect, which would indicate that it is far more likely that the one outlier solution is snuffed out because the conventional thinking deemed it as an unacceptable outlier and snuffed the account or user out. Think of those who opposed the Iraq war or even the Afghan war, or warned about the tech or housing bubbles, or any number of people who warned about the things that were obvious in hindsight, but the conventional thought persecuted before it became painfully obvious.
When you start digging into the details of this phenomenon, it is quite unsettling actually just how likely it is that the spark of genius we are all hoping for regarding any particular matter under consideration, may have been snuffed because it or the person that could have provided the solution was declared an personal non grata and were essentially put in a digital concentration camp or buried in a digital mass grave of accounts, executed by some fanatic moderator or administrator that did not tolerate wrongthink or free speech as ever broader rubrics of language are falling under ever harsher persecution.
Just think of all the outliers that have produced essentially most major discoveries, now imagine if they had been making their controversial points today in a forum. They would have been shunned and immediately shadow banned, fully banned, or summarily had their voice snuffed out in any number of ways, maybe even just by one moderator or administrator with a dictatorial chip on their shoulder with far more control and power than any one person should have over another person's voice and speech ... no matter how much you are self-convinced that they are wrong and you are right and therefor no one else should be able to hear what you don't approve of.
That applies to this forum too by the way. I know, this is the dominion of the technocratic elite demigods and wrongthink will not be tolerated from mere inferiors, but just think about it all for a second ... if you even get to see this point being made and some mod hasn't deemed it unacceptable for others to see. But you wouldn't have ever known that it was even made, because there would be no trace of it, on orders of the mod executioner.
Completely dodged the question and pulled the "Think Of The Children" card, framing the asker as a CP supporter.
Game over for free speech on reddit. It's so blatant it's insulting.
It’s a report on government/law enforcement requests. This concept wasn’t started by reddit, but by Google and Microsoft.
Reddit is a private company and owes you nothing. Deal with it or visit another site. It’s one thing to suggest changes, but don’t start thinking they or any other company owes it to you to produce whatever documentation and reporting you happen to be curious about.
> Every year, Reddit produces a Transparency Report to provide users with information about the types of requests that we receive from third parties that want Reddit to disclose user data or remove content from the platform.