3 ms·
Not only is it not ironclad, it’s unsupported. Accurate headlines would be more like “Reddit bans users after they use an accessibility app” or “Reddit users
by D13Fd 6y ago
Not only is it not ironclad, it’s unsupported.
Accurate headlines would be more like “Reddit bans users after they use an accessibility app” or “Reddit users banned after they use accessibility app.”
There is just no basis for ascribing intent here.
- MrStonedOne 6y agoThere needs to be some sort of push in the other direction for this trend of not stating why bans happen, and treating wild speculation as fact because the site owners choose not to provide the user (and the public they tell) info on the ban is a perfectly acceptable solution.
- D13Fd 6y agoTreating wild speculation as fact just kills credibility. The headline is simply inaccurate. We don’t know whether Reddit banned the users because they were blind and using an accessibility app (extremely unlikely) or because they were using an accessibility app with extra-API features that may have inadvertently violated some policy or that may have taken actions that resembled those of a banned app or a spam app.
- MereInterest 6y agoWhich is a major reason why the reason for a ban should be required for any ban. There is a basis for investigating intent. The evidence that would be necessary for ascribing intent has been obscured by the same party that made the ban.
- D13Fd 6y agoAgreed, but that’s a separate issue from whether headlines should be accurate to the facts available.