This question is more related to the overall Lemmy/kbin experience and not necessarily wefwef, but is there a potential function in the works to hide posts? That’s what I loved about Apollo, I could manually hide posts (I had it as a swipe feature) or have it auto hide read posts. It kept my feed looking much more fresh, and it’s honestly the biggest thing I’m missing in the transition.
That’s great to hear, thanks. I honestly didn’t know if it was just a thing for Apollo, did other apps have it as a feature? I went from AlienBlue to Apollo so haven’t experienced a lot of them.
Yup. That’s a native Reddit feature so it is part of the implementation of a lot of apps. In wefwef’s case I’m not sure how they developed it because I don’t think that’sa native feature of Lemmy
Jesus.....why would he even bother adjusting the business model if part of the agreement was he makes zero money??....Am I missing understanding something? Seems like a waste of time on developers part...
IIUC Narwhal 1 will be free but will drop its ads in return for being free (so a non-commercial app). Rather than a special deal I figure that this passed under the same rule that other noncommercial apps like RedReader did.
Narwhal 2 will charge a subscription to cover the API fees, including top up fees if you go over some limit, suggesting this is the normal reddit API pricing. I think developers of like Apollo couldn't do this because they had preexisting annual subscriptions. I guess Narwhal didn't have anything like this.
I guess I thought the whole issue was even if the app was not commercial, in order for users to actually make it work they need to use reddit API and that's unsustainable since it cost money regardless. Maybe that's where my misunderstanding stems from. I'm not the most tech savvy with all this API stuff.
Your understanding is correct, but reddit did announce exemptions for noncommercial apps and accessibility apps (without defining the latter term). IIUC reddit said something along the lines of "we shouldn't be lunprofitable while third party apps are profitable."
Ah possible. Maybe Narwhal 1 was still able to get an exemption under this rule (because reddit never defined what an accessibility app was) and is just keeping mum about or downplaying the accessibility angle.
IIUC reddit said something along the lines of "we shouldn't be unprofitable while third party apps are profitable."
They did, ignoring the fact that the scales are completely different and the fact that the 3PAs helped mods and engaged, contributing members provide content and services that Reddit didn't have to pay for, thereby mitigating or maybe even completely counterbalancing the costs of supporting them.
Agreed. I just tried to state what they said - in my defense i never said that what they said made sense because as you just said it doesn't really make sense.
Honestly, while I'm happily settled here in the "threadiverse" and all that, I've seen that the main subs I used to visit and have now reopened, are all working about the same as before the protests. They were all basically niches, so they weren't as badly affected by bot comments and the such. We will see, however, if their moderation can still keep up after the 1st tho.
I feel like I'm seeing way less posts moving through Hot. I'll have articles from 13+ hours among my feed, where that used to not happen. A 6-7 hour gap would fully refresh the feed just about, whereas now if might be closer to 2/3s new.
Won't have much to compare to now, account wipe starts tonight.
I think some of the problem too is not realizing that... it's kind of broken in a lot of ways and a lot of the times it's not super apparent why.
There's a lot of things that work in one instance and just don't in another, and I think the user frequently thinks it's because they're doing something wrong when in reality, whatever you're trying to do just isn't working right now.
Let's see if it continues through July and August.
I'm hopeful, but there is still a lot of content engagement over on Reddit. It doesn't seem like it's struggling all that much from a surface level observation.
It will probably drive away a lot of adults, though. Even if they are unaware of the Fediverse or don’t consider it an acceptable substitute for Reddit, they won’t stay if the threads are dominated by bored teens screwing around.
It’s already bad enough. On my single visit back a few days ago it struck me that the largely ignorant and unperceptive comments I was reading were probably written by kids who were just killing time and didn’t actually have much interest in the topic at hand.
A flood of children at the same time as an exodus of the type of users who actually upload good content to Reddit could definitely set up the conditions for a steady bleed of users away from the site, though. Especially with moderators' ability to actually do their job being impacted by the API changes.
Also worth noting that reddit control the metrics that they release for a lot of this.
There's no real measure of good engagement vs shallow engagement, so they can find a way to show that user visits are up even if the worthwhile content is starting its slow slide. Shit, i probably used to visit reddit once a day for 12 hours, but now i visit 5 times a day when i instinctively enter the URL.
So the metrics that reddit controls are showing that things are going down. How bad must things be that even reddit can't hide it from their metrics now?
If we could truly measure good vs shallow engagement, I wonder how much worse these numbers would be.
I think most of these are third party metrics collected from ad services, we've seen a few choice ones from reddit about how little traffic has dropped but of course Reddit will find ways to express an ever rising metric until they can't.
Facebook somehow reports near magical user growth, but 90% of the people I'm connected to it barely seem to be there.
I strongly suspect, but can't prove, that the 80/20 rule applies to reddit. I expect 20% of the users create 80% of the content and engagement, and that even if only 1% of reddit leaves it's almost certainly coming out of the productive 20%. However i'll bet Reddit will never start openly sharing stats about how engaged the top quintile of their users are, because that provides too much insight. Much better to talk about monthly active users and count those of us that flip over there by mistake or for one community we can't replace here.
The largest ones like r/pics are still protesting iirc (protest engagement seeming to bring in less ad revenue than normal traffic) and some large ones like r/Minecraft have shutdown. (Someone else made a good point about the biggest subs not having particular tribes and thus the mods are theoretically easier to replace than a smaller knit community - but the ones currently in charge are still trying.)
Engaging over protest content seems to still be hurting reddit where it counts. Some subs have gone completely to normal (and this is what reddit is trying to promote on r/all) but it seems not enough.
This is (maybe) the "beginning" of the end for Reddit, not the "end" of the end. The big change isn't Reddit, but here.
When Digg fell, everyone moved to Reddit. When this API situation started there was not an obvious new solution to move to. Lemmy/KBin were mentioned but not readily accepted due to concerns with the content and capabilities of the fediverse. That is changing quickly, and the next time Reddit screws up, we will have much more active communities, quality apps, and fewer bugs.
Baconreader was my app of choice for Reddit. I preferred the simplicity, cutting out things I really didn't care about. Sad to see what Reddit has done to the community.
Is there any planned date for a mass delete? I would guess it would be more meaningful if many of us deleted on the same day.
Personally, I logged out of my account for the blackout and haven't been back -- I plan to delete my 3 accounts tomorrow before the 3rd party apps shut down.
To that end, Google recently unveiled a new feature called Perspectives, which aims to surface discussion forums and videos from various social media platforms, including TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, and Quora.
Google used to have this years ago. It was just a search toggle called "discussions" and it would prioritize search results from forums, comments, reddit, etc. It was extremely useful to find real information while avoiding SEO blogspam ad platforms, which is why they removed it in the first place.
YouTube also significantly restricts the reach of demonetised content, though. It becomes very unlikely for even people who are subscribed to your channel to see your new uploads.
JFC... are you this daft or just trolling? I'll map out this entire conversation because you're not able to keep up with your own BS and then I'm done with you.
This started because you made a claim that YouTube demonetizing things = "companies fiddling with speech."
Then, before I ever responded to you, the next comment that you made was "Free speech usually means that you have freedom to express yourself, not that you're speaking for no pay lol."
So it started off sounding like you were equating demonetization with a lack of free speech. I replied, _"To be honest, I'm not sure why YouTube was brought into a conversation about free speech. YouTube is not a free speech platform; thus, demonetization of someone on YouTube's platform has nothing at all to do with free speech."
Then you wanted to move the goalposts, so you said, "This conversation wasn't about free speech, it was about companies fiddling with speech." as you removed the word "free." You have the ability to NOT post on YouTube. YouTube CANNOT "fiddle with speech" if you do not participate in YouTube. Anything you put on there is content that they own. If somehow, some employee of YouTube starts following you around and setting off a bullhorn anytime you start to talk, I'll agree, then they're "fiddling with speech." If some employee of YouTube (Alphabet), starts coming on to Kbin or Lemmy, and removing your comments from here, then I'll agree with you in that scenario too. When an employee of YouTube is removing comments or not promoting comments that they don't like, that's not a speech issue; it's content moderation.
Still not free speech at all. You're pointing out the difference between being able to speak freely and being provided an audience. There are no nations in history or philosophers in humanity which supposed the existence of a human right to provide an audience to everyone.
But again, YouTube isn't a free speech platform. The public sidewalk is, YouTube isn't. They have no obligation to provide you anything at all.
This is undoubtedly true. YouTube is a private entity and there is no legal obligation for them to treat speech equally. But it is subjectively troubling that YouTube, a virtual monopoly, has little qualms about directly shaping the political discourse on its platform, censoring and limiting the reach of content about LGBT people while Fox News is on the front page.
They are absolutely no where close to a virtual monopoly. Anyone can upload and stream content online, and probably millions of websites allow it now, without exaggeration. What they have is a prefab audience. There are no considerations needed for free speech whatsoever.
If you want to influence their moderation habits, you need to be their customer or better yet, their shareholder. As just another leeching user, your voice means nothing to them and frankly that isn't problematic. 10,000 leeches won't influence them the same as one paying customer. I can guarantee that. And again, if you're just a leech then it really is no wonder why they wouldn't listen as a for-profit business.
There are troubling bits about lots of platforms and media outlets and companies, but that's not an excuse to twist up legal terminologies like monopoly or free speech in order to make weak criticisms. Doing so weakens the framework of law more than it does influence YouTube at all. Because that framework of law is only as valid as we use it. Countless examples of that problem abound - virtually the entirety of the Trump presidency is an example of why misuse of the law in common discussions among people is actually very dangerous. That's been a sticking point for me for a long time, and it's more important as years go by. So I'm gonna call it out, especially when it's happening on "my" team.
If you're gonna make accusations where we actually have legal recourse (like monopolies) then you need to understand them. There is no where close to a real monopoly in YouTube.
To be honest, I'm not sure why YouTube was brought into a conversation about free speech. YouTube is not a free speech platform; thus, demonetization of someone on YouTube's platform has nothing at all to do with free speech.
demonitization means taking money away... that doesn't have anything to do with speech. Posting on YouTube is not "speech" in the traditional sense. Posting on YouTube is content creation.
"Speech" in terms of the context in which you've been trying to use it means that you're free in an open forum. Speech would be going out on to the sidewalk and saying things to people. Speech would be your ability to make a platform like YouTube for others to make videos and say whatever they want.
Just as you do not have the right to demand air-time on ABC news to rant about whatever you want; you do not get the right to demand space on YouTube to rant about whatever you want either. When you post on YouTube (or Lemmy / Kbin / reddit) those things you say are not "speech." The posts you make are content for someone else's platform.
I really don't know where you got that from. And I'm not freaking demanding anything. Just pointing out things that corporates be doing. Can't we fucking have conversation about how corporations can use their power to influence and direct conversation to be more "ad friendly" without people butting in with "aCtUally it'S wElL witHin thEiR righTS". I know that. I think most people do. Doesn't mean we can't talk about it or shit on the company.
You are free to understand me any which way you want but "speech" exists also on non-public or self-owned platforms. That's just dumb to argue otherwise. I'm right here, "speeching" away, on someone else's platform.
Companies fiddling with speech is perfectly legal. No one is obliged to give a soapbox to anyone. Companies curbing speech they don't want to host is not an infringment on speech, legally (in the US, at least).
An anaolgy might be: You offer your front yard for people to put signs in. Someone decides to put a Nazi flag sign in your yard. You are within your rights to remove that sign, even though you made a general offer for anyone to put signs in your yard.
People (again, in the US) very often conflate this kind of situation - a private entity curbing speech that they don't want to be associated with - with the First Amendment of the US Constitution (my emphasis):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Free speech, in the US, is about whether Congress, and as has been interpreted by the courts, the government generally, may abridge the freedom of speech. The government may not.
Even so, free speech is not absolute. It remains against the law for individuals to use speech to incite violence, or to incite an emergency reaction where no emergency exists ("Fire!" in a crowded theater), for two examples. Another example would be communicating classified information to people who are not authorized to have said information.
There remains a real conflict about free speech, and it's the elmination of the commons. When the Constitution was written and ratified, the First Amendment protection of speech was more effective, because the way you would get your speech to a large number of people was via distribution of pamphlets and just speaking aloud in public spaces, where passers-by were walking. The landscape is very different today, where "public" messaging happens on the conduits provided by private companies - who, as we've learned, are not legally obliged to carry that speech. In fact, those private companies operating "open forums" can be held responsible for failing to moderate speech which runs afoul of legal limitations on speech.
The internet is definitely a huge change around speech, but the degradation of public spaces brought on by shopping malls - which are private property - had the same kind of effect. The fact that we tend to spend more time in our private homes, travel in the bubbles of our private vehicles, and do our personal business entirely on private property effectively reduces the public space available to exercise our own free speech effectively, or be exposed to others' speech similarly.
That’s where tech companies start to get a justification to fiddle with speech.
Which implies that companies need a "justification," which further implies that companies "fiddling with speech" needs to be "justified," as though "unjustified fiddling with speech by companies" is, or should be, disallowed.
Later, you said:
Free speech usually means that you have freedom to express yourself, ...
That might be colloquially accurate, but it's misleading in the context of private companies acting as platforms for speech, in the US (I know I have beat that drum plenty, but it's necessary).
Infringement of freedoms is met with legal consequences. Since private entities are not oblligated to be a platform for any speech, whether that's a forum on the internet or other people's signs in your front yard, there are no legal consequences when those private entities curb the speech in the space they provide for speech. The discussions around this situation generally carry a subtext of "something should be done about this," and because of the conflation of colloquial vs legal "free speech," it's easy for that "something" to feel like "companies shouldn't be able to do that," with legal consequences.
Who is talking about it being illegal?
People rightly recognize that there is a problem with the diminishing ability for people to express themselves, and conversations about that usually misidentify the problem as being with the operators of private spaces where so much speech is today exercised. Any solution which grants and protects individual rights is necessarily a legal solution. So, while maybe nobody is saying the words "It should be illegal for companies to curb speech on the platforms they operate," the discussion is about a legal remedy.
I was trying to describe that the problem is more likely the degradation of the public commons. The relative absence of public spaces in which speech can be effectively transmitted drives people's speech to private spaces, and those private spaces come with much greater limitations on speech. While I don't have a specific solution to offer for that problem, I have to think it must include creating or reinvigorating public commons.
it means your government cannot limit your right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions. you can say whatever you want but be ready for consequences for saying stupid, racist, bigoted stuff from the rest of your fellow countrymen.
Demonetisation in Youtube is not just about payment, it is also about the "reach" of your video -- demonetised videos get pushed to the bottom by "the algorithm".
but thats the buety of other things. We all have to be ready to leave stuff if its bs. I was barely on facebook, only keep linkedin for job search purposes, and did reddit till it just got to crappy. Might leave this but because its independent I could leave my home for another federated region. I can block what I want which frees up less boosted content and if need be I will go to yet another type of platform.
I remember recently they changed some of their NSFW language rules, people had the shits and 6 weeks later they changed them again. This one guy who makes summaries of r/amitheasshole changed how he says it to 'am I the butt hole'
It's silly crap like that which is the most annoying, trying to censor the most mundane swear words.
But it's silly crap like that that matters to advertisers. NSFW actually is the word "fuck", "asshole", etc. You might be able to say that at work, not everyone can without repercussion.
And that's not a stretch at all, it's why network television won't let you say either of those words either. Not next to their Ford and Samsung advertisements.
The entire premise of NSFW is silly to me. Like no one has an obligation to make sure YOU are safely browsing at work. Get back to work.
The NSFW flag is a really good idea in my opinion. It's a compromise. It's like saying "we're still going to have content that might not go over well with all audiences, or all settings; but you just have to mark it as such so that someone ELSE that happens to see the screen doesn't have a shit fit." I feel like it protects me, as the viewer. If I want to look at a picture of a party of lemons, then I know that what I'm about to click might cause me to get a bunch of shit from my conservative co-worker. Maybe I'll wait for her to leave the room, and then I'll click the link about the party of lemons.
If you don't at least have reliable NSFW flags then many parents (and more importantly schools) won't let their kids watch, which is a large part of ad revenue.
"Warnings about explicit content work" is a new take to me. The history of such direct warnings tells us otherwise. At one point there were bands dropping F-bombs on albums just to get that sticker. Because it increased their sales and visibility.
The Streisand Effect is real, in big ways and also in these small ones. I'm not saying don't try, but I'm telling you it won't ever work the way you think it will.
What's interesting is that the MPAA Rating system itself was a compromise from the industry with the government to avoid the government stepping in to control content. That's where it started. Seems eerily similar no? It's not coincidence. But that's just another example of the point I'm making too: originally they rated porn movies "X" and agreed these wouldn't be in the industry- controlled theaters. Porn movie producers took it as a badge and began labeling their movies "XXX" and leaned into it so hard, the MPAA had to change the distinction to something more innocuous, "NC-17." But the cats out of the bag, even today every 11 year old kid knows what XXX means. The warning became a siren call.
Warnings are just the Streisand Effect, so don't expect much of them.
The entire premise of NSFW is silly to me. Like no one has an obligation to make sure YOU are safely browsing at work. Get back to work.
I think you’re taking the W in NSFW too literally. It’s a user-moderated content filtering system. Be it at work, school, on a bus, in the streets, many people wish to be considerate of others and don’t want to publicly flaunt questionable material.
It may be to protect others from having to view it or to protect themselves from repercussion viewing explicit content in professional environments.
There’s also a difference between some text with ‘bad words’ and having hardcore porn or beheadings (NSFL) or whatever. Is there a grey area? Of course, different people will consider different things appropriate, especially in different settings and different cultures, but giving users the ability to flag content they post as ‘potentially questionable’ (synonymous to NSFW from my perspective) is just a means to respect other users.
Brand safety as an idea isn't dangerous, and there's an entire sub-industry in the adTech space devoted to it. The bottom line is most companies don't want their ads showing up on sites or in close proximity to certain types of content (illegal, political, hate speech, etc.). Services from these companies are used to make sure when doing ads on the open web, your DSP doesn't inadvertently put your ads in places like that. One example: https://integralads.com/solutions/brand-safety-suitability/
The original owner of 4chan left after leaked celebrity nudes were posted on the site. The owner faced gigantic lawsuits over it and ultimately decided owning the site was too much legal hassle.
So maybe posting nudes of Jennifer Lawrence to Reddit’s front page would do them in too?
“My number one concern right now as an advertiser would be that Reddit seems to be losing rapport with and control over their users. Reddit needs to talk to their community members now and work to regain their trust and support or risk losing brand advertisers long term.”
We’ll see. The article also notes that no company has pulled their ads from Reddit yet and even says that compared to some other sites, Reddit isn’t doing so bad (I’m assuming they’re implying Twitter’s refusal to remove hate speech).
RedditMigration
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.