I was banned from /r/police for mentioning Philip Brailsford, a cop and murderer that gets a lifetime disability pension for PTSD from executing someone on their knees in a local hotel’s hallway.
I guess they probably hated my speech.
I guess they probably hated my speech.
I also made some silly quips about spez in the same timeframe. It is possible he was salty about it and arbitrarily chose a comment to reference in the banning, not being the true reason. It certainly would not be out of character.
Theres serious issues that far exceed those or the mods, not least of which being that they are even more prone to abuse of power without Any oversight of substance.
If you have a problem with an admin who banned you, your only recourse is to violate the TOS to make an alt to complain in a post in a sub where they will then immediately ban that alt account and remove the post "due to ban evasion"...
In my original comment I mention mods banning for hate speech in an abusive / ironic manner (so nobody is truly worried for their safety for example).
I think reddit used to automatically forwards reports for this category for admin review probably due to a legal requirement. Due to the mass quantity of reports vs staff, I suspect they automatically flag mod reports as credible. As such they have automatic admin superbans.
Admin reviewed bans are a higher level of ban and super bans and use every possible privacy exploit to go far beyond basic account or cache banning. It’s far beyond even IP banning.
These seem to be intended for truly extreme, severe, violent actions such as credible acts of immediate impending mass violence, coordinating true terror, promoting actual adult offensive exploitive content, etc.
Instead, they map hate speech and some other serious reports to this category. Technically, it sounds like it makes sense on paper, but this is abused so heavily that essentially meme reports are nearly sending automatic SWAT raids to people’s homes.
I’m guessing these are only summarized in a broad category to staff as “Mod reported + Admin reviewed. User banned for performing or conspiring terrorism / active police verified death threats / extreme exploitative adult content / active police verified mass murder / hate speech”
That last one technically fitting the rest if it’s used correctly (or at least one could argue) but as a chain of OR listed reasons, someone who was ironically banned because the mod “hated that they disagreed with the mod’s decision to ban scumbag steve memes from the meme subreddit” is suddenly flagged in the same category of true terrorists, as if Bin Laden himself had his own subreddit and was posting live content of his active mass public attack.
This is one reason they want people to download their app. Any association such as unique app combinations installed or other accounts (including non-reddit accounts) can be linked to a user even when they opt out of traditional tracking. They can then sell this data or use it in a magnitude of ways.
This is a specific core problem I’ve been tracking but this is a general template example of many of Reddit’s problems I’ve strongly disagreed with that go beyond general debatable business choices or general preferences.
HackerNews is no better. I've gotten feedback for calling out SV and the nation of Germany... I guess I could have been more "constructive", but what you find is these things are applied selectively.
I don't really agree that you need to be constructive when talking about big institutions; arguably this isn't even a good idea. There's no need to use kid gloves with bigoted nations or billionaires.
Yeah. Of all the comments I have made, I least expected it to be that one. As it was a complete Reddit ban, not just a subreddit ban, it is possible that it was just Huffman doing his usual round of trolling and not really about the comment at all. I had participated in a discussion about the API changes earlier the same day said comment was made, so I was "on the radar".
Either way it was pretty funny.
Lol Yeah, I'm sure THAT'S what you were banned for. What particular aspect of their marketing did you take issue with? Maybe you let slip some of your obvious-to-everyone prejudice in your "criticism".
And I doubt that mulvany was the issue. People don’t want politics in their beer. I guarantee you that both a pro-choice and an anti-abortion marketing campaign would have negative effects on their sales.
>both a pro-choice and an anti-abortion marketing campaign would have negative effects on their sales
Ok? I wasn't commenting on the efficacy of various political themed advertising campaigns, I was challenging the notion that benign lamentation of advertisement quality was what got him banned.
If I had to put money on it I'd put a 3-4 digit sum on what that guy actually got banned for. And it rhymes with ransphobia. Anyone who cares that much about an ad only cares about that ad for one reason. And I'd bet his phobia leaked out in his totally benign criticisms.
I don’t drink bud anyways since I don’t enjoy the taste of vodka spiked urine, but if my drink of choice started making their opinions on abortion known I’d stop drinking it too.
Make product. Sell product. I buy product. Fin.
The point politics enters the equation, I exit. I’m already so incredibly exhausted from hearing trump this Biden that hunter this Zelenskyy that day in day out.