Similar to that, yeah, although I think the master/slave thing started earlier. (It’s a bit more blatant, tbf.)

I agree that allowlist doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as nicely, but as long as it makes it obvious what the word means, I’ll go with it.

In recent years there’s been a shift from “white/black list” to “allow/block list” in an effort to avoid the stereotypes associated with those terms. I wouldn’t say it’s the new norm yet, but it’s slowly becoming more popular.

The difference is that racists are usually racist due to a moral stance, not because it makes them money; ignoring them means we’ll hear about it less but it won’t actually go away. Clickbait/ragebait, on the other hand, isn’t a moral viewpoint - it’s meant to bring a person money via exposure/engagement, so less engagement leads to less money which leads to less bait because it’s no longer working.

I can see how creators who are solely on Patreon will benefit from the additional features, but I’m curious about how widely they’ll be adopted by those who post on multiple platforms. If you have a YouTube channel and use Patreon for members-only content, for example, using the Patreon chat feature would exclude the non-member portion of your community from those conversations. While this is a good alternative for those who specifically want member-only chat areas, I don’t see it replacing tools like Discord any time soon.

Also, having the member profiles on by default definitely made me pause when I got the email a few weeks ago. I know some people will enjoy that feature, but I personally went in and immediately turned it off.

I use it for my own dvds/blu-rays, yeah. This is technically still considered piracy, but my personal view is that I’m fine paying for something once because the people who made it deserve to get paid, but I’m not fine paying for the same thing multiple times when the effort on their end to make the new version was basically zero. It would be one thing if there were physical costs like going from vhs to dvd, but that’s not the case here.

If anything, I think the r/diving example would have been a good choice to include alongside the others. It demonstrates how something that’s already risky can quickly turn even more dangerous when inexperienced (or outright deceitful) mods are appointed.

It’s not that I find the examples in the article to be wrong, more that they give the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the author really had to dive deep to find any material to support their view. It gives off the same vibes as the articles claiming everyone’s outraged about ABC, when really the whole thing is based off three tweets and a TikTok. I’m not in any way trying to say that that’s what’s actually going on here, merely that it’s the way the article reads (at least to me).

While I enjoy some Reddit drama every now and again as much as the next person, this article had a plenty of words but very little substance. A few former mods are concerned that new mods don’t have the proper knowledge and background to moderate effectively (but with no concrete examples of a post’s misinformation directly leading to harm), and researchers are worried they may no longer be able to use Reddit data for their studies (although Reddit has a policy around research-based access and is working with Pushshift to improve access).

These examples feel cherry-picked, and the article itself says that it’s too soon to say whether or not content quality was impacted by the API changes and mod replacements. Without actual data - or at least many more examples of specific concerns that weren’t present before the changes - it doesn’t do much other than say “a few people are worried that something bad might happen.”

Pretty sure LinkedIn already called dibs on selling our employment data.