What the heck?!!! If there are no mods then who's doing the banning???
abff08f4813c
joined 2 years ago
We are of one mind!
Kinda like how the mental health subs didn't participate in the blackout - they had to stay open, and everyone understood the rationale for that. It's a special case that deserves an exception.
There are actually a couple of different versions lying around. Even if none of them support it, if you are a JS dev then I would expect that adding this kind of ability to it should be fairly quick and easy.
This makes me just want to erase the comments from reddit entirely. To avoid getting users trapped into reddit like this. Better to make them search harder and find the answers outside of reddit.
That's a really good point. These kinds of archives aren't so easily searchable perhaps. That's why I favour manually copying content over into the fediverse. Adding the links to the fediverse (or wherever the new home is) from the old reddit commits has the benefit of making it more discoverable while hopefully keeping ad views for them down.
Agreed completely. But this what we need to achieve. That sense of loss, so the casual browser starts looking elsewhere.
I like the idea to add a link to the true answer on the fediverse. Those searching reddit will still find the answer but hopefully this will result in fewer ad views for reddit.
I describe exactly what I did and used in my two articles - https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/t/65260/PSA-Here-s-exactly-what-to-do-if-you-hit-the and https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/t/59451/Finally-Managed-to-erase-all-1477-of-my-comments
The original author of that script posted it here - https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/t/16226/Wrote-a-script-to-edit-all-my-posts
This is the way.
Can you do that with PDS? I didn't know that it supported that.
Someone else had a similar question not too long ago - see https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/t/83362/Is-there-a-bulk-Reddit-edit-tool-that-DOESN-T-overwrite
Thanks for this. I may have worded the above badly. I never meant to imply that it was the case that a business is labelled as either a publisher or a platform under Section 230, but rather this would be an instance where they lose such protections on this particular piece of content as a consequence of this one decision.
Here is what others on the fediverse have pointed out in regards to editorial control and Section 230:
https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/t/66676/The-entire-r-MildlyInteresting-mod-has-just-been-REINSTATED-again-without#entry-comment-293617
https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/t/72348/Reddit-Admins-Deny-Subreddit-Users-the-Right-to-Vote-for#entry-comment-333575
https://kbin.social/m/fediverse/p/526492/A-few-days-ago-I-suggested-that-once-Meta-s-Threads#post-comment-932539
I don't think any of us are using the "If you said “Once a company like that starts moderating content, it’s no longer a platform, but a publisher” argument.
Rather, we're using the "If you said “Section 230 requires all moderation to be in “good faith” and this moderation is “biased” so you don’t get 230 protections” one.
So, let's assume for the sake of argument that the misunderstanding on the original story was actually the true story. (I.e. admins deleted the content, not mods for the John Oliver rule).
Still IANAL but my layperson's understanding is would be that (even though no court has gone this way yet) Section (c)(1) isn't as relevant because no one is disputing that reddit is not source of the picture. Obviously it was the OP who was the source - in fact OP could be the party on the other side of this hypothetical court action. But since there's no dispute to settle through Section (c)(1) then we must move on.
Section (c)(2)(B) should not apply because reddit removed the picture. It's not a case of reddit enabling or making that picture available, but the opposite. And providing the technical means for other to remove it (although this actually applies to this example in the real world because they gave the mod the tools to do that and the mod was the one who actually did it) in hypothetical example, reddit did it themselves - through an admin, who is an employee of reddit, who's actions represent reddit's own actions here.
So we do seem to have crafted a case where the focus should be on Section (c)(2)(A).
It's interesting though that according to the techdirt article that something like the above has never been tested in court. And the bit about a judge trying to figure out "good faith" and the massive 1st amendment issues therein makes sense. I think the techdirt article goes too far in stating that arguing for a moderation against good faith wouldn't help - it's never made it to a court after all so we don't have any examples on how a court would rule when asked to decide on that point.
But considering how reddit has traditionally operated - unless there was a legal requirement like DMCA compliance or IP violation, they left all moderating decisions to the volunteer mods - to make a special exception in this case to their usual hands-off policy - and specifically to make a decision that even the mods disagreed with - likely would give reddit quite the headache in trying to argue that they acted in good faith.
But again IANAL.