Article is very biased towards Reddit the Company, and actively paints the protesting mods as being the sole instigators of the protest, calling them “super mods” which has a negative connotation, and makes no mention of the fact that many users and communities are also in support of said protest. It also paints the protesters as immature by positing the “question” of will the community “let [reddit] grow up”, implying that the protesters are stifling the growth of reddit. It is very sympathetic towards spez and calls the reddit community “rambunctious”, as if the reddit community are children, and only quotes negative examples of notable things the reddit community has achieved. It writes of the protests as if it’s a child’s temper tantrum that will go away with time.
The article paints the death of the Apollo app as the main reason for the protest, other than the one line of “Old-timers were also angry that the heady days of Reddit’s anticapitalist roots seemed to be officially over.”, which is inaccurate. It makes no mention of the many other reasons the community is unhappy and protesting, which includes, among others:
the lack of accessibility features and proper moderation tools in the official app,
the perceived dishonesty on the part of Reddit the Company,
and the loss of faith in Reddit the Company in general.
It also doesn’t state the true reason why people were upset about the death of Apollo and other 3PAs, which is that those apps had the accessibility features and moderation tools that the official reddit app should have had but doesn’t, and the loss of these 3PAs means that the already back-breaking job of moderation is only going to get harder. It makes no mention of the fact that the unhappiness over the API pricing was due to the ridiculous price and the short time frame, instead painting these “apps like Apollo” as leeches that “send no money back to the company”.
tldr: article is very biased toward spez, making him seem like a sympathetic parent trying to control his rebellious children, generalising all protesting mods as bad “super mods”, and does not mention the real issues of the protest.
Well it’s the new York times and they are right wing biased if I recall correctly and the right love corporation’s to the point that they’d make out with corporation’s
Article is very biased towards Reddit the Company, and actively paints the protesting mods as being the sole instigators of the protest, calling them “super mods” which has a negative connotation, and makes no mention of the fact that many users and communities are also in support of said protest. It also paints the protesters as immature by positing the “question” of will the community “let [reddit] grow up”, implying that the protesters are stifling the growth of reddit. It is very sympathetic towards spez and calls the reddit community “rambunctious”, as if the reddit community are children, and only quotes negative examples of notable things the reddit community has achieved. It writes of the protests as if it’s a child’s temper tantrum that will go away with time.
The article paints the death of the Apollo app as the main reason for the protest, other than the one line of “Old-timers were also angry that the heady days of Reddit’s anticapitalist roots seemed to be officially over.”, which is inaccurate. It makes no mention of the many other reasons the community is unhappy and protesting, which includes, among others:
It also doesn’t state the true reason why people were upset about the death of Apollo and other 3PAs, which is that those apps had the accessibility features and moderation tools that the official reddit app should have had but doesn’t, and the loss of these 3PAs means that the already back-breaking job of moderation is only going to get harder. It makes no mention of the fact that the unhappiness over the API pricing was due to the ridiculous price and the short time frame, instead painting these “apps like Apollo” as leeches that “send no money back to the company”.
tldr: article is very biased toward spez, making him seem like a sympathetic parent trying to control his rebellious children, generalising all protesting mods as bad “super mods”, and does not mention the real issues of the protest.
Pretty much all the media handling of this has been far too lenient on reddit, and far too happy to be critical towards moderators.
They mention in that article how reddit was strongly free-speech, but failed to address the fact that they are very far from that now
Well it’s the new York times and they are right wing biased if I recall correctly and the right love corporation’s to the point that they’d make out with corporation’s