They were 100% aware they were hosting a “not technically child pornography but we’re going to use it as child pornography” sub, but there’s no subreddit degenerate enough that they’ll ban it while it’s profitable.

The mothers may not even have been alive and medical staff simply can’t evacuate premature babies and all the ICU equipment needed to keep them alive.

This story is absolutely going to be used as “look how inhuman and barbarous these Palestinians are, good thing we’re genociding them” and your comment is exactly what they’re looking for.

But the reality is that if you shoot and bomb civilians, then threaten to bomb the hospital they’re being treated at, this could happen anywhere in the world.

They weren’t leaving babies to die and rot 6 months ago because they weren’t being shelled and shot at and if they weren’t being shelled and shot at now, they wouldn’t have left those babies either.

They welcome the evasion since they don’t actually want their number of ad impressions going down. They were just letting you know that under no circumstances were you to show anyone what’s behind the curtain.

A lot of the WASM ecosystem is still pretty rough

CrowdView expands the “add reddit.com to the query” idea to include many more sites, including ones that don’t platform extremists for a few more ad impressions.

Do you have actual stats for “not enough to hurt them”?

Because that sounds like something only reddit staff would actually know. It’s not like they have a legal obligation to release before and after stats about number of users, average engagement, etc.

That spreadsheet is how they make all their decisions, including things like “should we platform dangerous misinformation during a pandemic?” or “how many domestic terrorists do we allow per reactionary sub?”

When actual morality is cast aside in order to maximise profits, issues like “disappointing users” don’t stand a chance.

But the article has a pretty shallow definition of “won”, meaning “they put an end to the protests”. Given they have complete control over the platform, that was always going to be the most likely outcome.

The cost of putting down that protest is harder to see from the outside though.

Would they have “won” if they lost half their users in the process? Would they have “won” if the protest wiped millions off their value before their IPO? Have they “won” because they added another straw and the camel is still standing?

But ultimately, who cares what Gizmodos take is? They’re a for-profit media company publishing media that looks out for their own interests, which in this case is “it’s futile to try and hurt a company’s profits”, no different to any other neoliberal media empire.

Reddit’s recent monetisation schemes can all be summed up as “demanding a cut from people profiting off the site” and this is just more of that. They’ve done absolutely nothing to prevent astro-turfing and manipulation, now they’re just going to offer it as a service.

It does.

I’m sure they wouldn’t just lie to people who were deleting their accounts because reddit lied to them. That’s crazy talk.