233 karma · joined December 21, 2015
I'm not even sure what you mean by anti-feminist but I'll guess "hate women and their rights", which I'll say leftists are guilty of disrespecting and sending threats to conservative women with "incorrect opinions".
And anti-democracy is a funny point to bring up because a lot of far leftists from reddit are very pro communist and hate democracy.
On top of all this, you lump in anti-left and anti-liberal with your other categories of "evil", making anti-right and anti-conservative the good guys. Your bias is showing, and you're alienating political moderates in the center. This is why people are not voting the way you want them to.
This is not the first or will it be the last game to fail to deliver on promises, but the game was practically designed to sell around broken promises. The backlash was understandable, and simply more than they expected. My surprise is that the article doesn't read of regret for making poor decisions but more of victimhood like they didn't deserve the backlash.
The biggest thing they didn't consider about is the fact that there's a large subset of gamers that have tons of time but not a lot of money, so the money is incredibly important to them and when they're duped into buying something like that which drastically didn't deliver, they have a lot of time to spend to make other peoples lives miserable. Just imagine how angry these people got.
This was done with small "hate" subreddits too. Imagine they did that with some of the largest controversial subreddits, that would probably make half the users pack up and go.
The internet always worked this way. There are the cesspools, maybe things you don't like, but if you don't feel like engaging with these communities you simply keep going. Problem with these social media forum sites is that as much as you don't want to engage/debate with these communities they still use the same website as you so its unavoidable.
This is why centralizing these forums onto one website was a bad idea, blame that. Because now, there's too much money involved and excluding people of certain political ideas or whatever means you lose a substantial chunk of userbase, which means users would depart to another website.
So its debatable even they would win the ad arms race, but they would also lose credibility in their own metrics as the easiest solution will be to start fooling ad companies that their ads are loading.
But so much was lost from not simply uploading it somewhere from an internet cafe.
It enters the same ethical flexibility as things like wikileaks in my opinion
You can always start one that isnt called "altright" but you're less likely to get eyes on it which may be the entire point.
They're well within their rights to ban whomever they want, but they should be upfront about deleting subreddits that dont align with them politically rather than this game they're playing finding some TOS reason to remove an entire topic from the site. It doesn't make sense otherwise to punish everyone for the actions of a few.
If anything goes wrong with the password update, users get angry, lose faith in the services, stress, a few people get fired maybe, etc etc. On the other hand, letting it stay old and crappy just everything stays just peachy, and nobody is the wiser that the entire system is a house of cards. Until the day someone hacks the database of course... which happened so its "now" a problem.
They're not going to begin to take security seriously even after this incident. They'll do what they need to right now but there's no auditing and their users don't normally care about this sort of thing, therefore the management won't care either.
There's still many other possible scenarios but I think it generally does what the author wants in a not so annoying way.
if user doesnt verify email within a few days, that email "expires" and is removed from the account. Add a message to nag the user to add a proper email to their account.
this removes the edge case mentioned in the article and reduces sign up friction.
If that's not what they want to have (as its clearly making the CEO on edge), why not enforce some strict rules? The people they don't like will simply flock to other communities that will allow it and it becomes their problem.