Anybody who puts money into Reddit has more money than sense.
Their choice. Their loss.
Censorship merely for the sake of censorship has been the incipient downfall of Reddit for around ten years. People should have learned in that time. They didn't.
Today I mentioned on the local /r/australia subreddit that it was 45 years ago this week that the film "Mad Max" had been released.
Now "Mad Max" is a famous and well-known Australian film. You'd expect that there would be some interest in that.
This is what happened to that general-interest post:
post reply Just ICYMI, "Mad Max" was released 45 years ago this week.
from AutoModerator[M] via /r/australia sent 17 hours ago
This post has been removed as an empty / very-short self-post. Chit-chat is best submitted to the daily thread.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically.
Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
contextfull comments (1)reportblock usermark unreadreply
As I said above, censorship merely for the sake of censorship. What's the definition of 'very short'? Two words? Ten Words? One hundred words? One thousand words? Once you put the reason for a post, why should you need to add more unnecessary words to prevent it being "disappeared"?
As can be clearly seen, there is no REAL reason for removing this post.
Next time I have a another 'too short' post, I will try an experiment and add about 10-15 lines of extraneous material to pad it out. See if that changes things.
Revenue is usually before expenses. But it's Reddit not Wikimedia--I imagine they're efficient enough to have the $3.4M without having to put up donation pleas.
I think this is a case where reddit shouldn't listen to mods at all. Because some do use the available tools to randomly ban people some mods do not like. On the contrary, limit the tools to check and approve topics by content.
Those that moderate many subs need to give up some of that responsibility to others. It maybe would improve reddit again.
How certain are we that those 4 people are in fact individuals rather than a group? Or that some of the other mods are not the same person as the 4 individuals?
Readit News
Their choice. Their loss.
Censorship merely for the sake of censorship has been the incipient downfall of Reddit for around ten years. People should have learned in that time. They didn't.
Can you say more about what you mean?
Today I mentioned on the local /r/australia subreddit that it was 45 years ago this week that the film "Mad Max" had been released.
Now "Mad Max" is a famous and well-known Australian film. You'd expect that there would be some interest in that.
This is what happened to that general-interest post:
As I said above, censorship merely for the sake of censorship. What's the definition of 'very short'? Two words? Ten Words? One hundred words? One thousand words? Once you put the reason for a post, why should you need to add more unnecessary words to prevent it being "disappeared"?As can be clearly seen, there is no REAL reason for removing this post.
Next time I have a another 'too short' post, I will try an experiment and add about 10-15 lines of extraneous material to pad it out. See if that changes things.
In their filing to go public, reddit disclosed their CEO's compensation was $193 million last year.
Their revenue was $804 million. It's not a huge amount for them. They'd just rather not pay it.
They made $804M after all expenses? Or before?
Or perhaps open an API to moderators, limited to the subreddits they moderate. I'd love love love to have been able to do more from Discord, but nope.
Those that moderate many subs need to give up some of that responsibility to others. It maybe would improve reddit again.
Bad mods are worse than bad users.