Talk:Reddit API controversy

Analysis should include people who saw this coming and the analysis of why some think this is going to work.

@ElijahPepe, I am merely trying to make the logic of "striking" explicit in the article, because even though it's common, the reasoning of strikers is frequently misunderstood.

If this was not correct, how should it be done? In what ways is it not correct? Bart Terpstra (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The role of establishing analysis is done by reliable sources speaking about the current event. If we include commentary that is irrelevant to the controversy, we risk inserting a subjective viewpoint or a fringe opinion. I understand what you're trying to achieve, but what this article needs are a few references that analyze this blackout in particular. McArdle has done that, not sure if anyone else has. I saw a Vox reference in there but hadn't read past the exposition. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 12:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It had the relevant quote by an organizer as part of the metadata^[1].

I think the reading of it as a strike/withholding of labour due to disagreement over the social contract between users and platform holders is a major POV, if not the major POV.

Many statements of moderators affirm the idea that restricting access to what they produce will somehow allow them to bargain with reddit because they believe reddit can only generate profit if the users produce content^{[citation needed]} Bart Terpstra (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The comparison to a strike was made by McArdle. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

nvm, i'm already tired of arguing if you're going to be this dense. Bart Terpstra (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Now, now, boys, no fighting in the war-room. 82.12.223.229 (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe I agree this should be in there, but I don’t think this should be the first sentence. It’s nice to know, but you don’t need to know where people discussed things to know that they did. Also, people must have discussed it other places as well. It should be moved to the end of the section. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Currently, the verge forms the majority of the references for this article. There are currently 52 references, and 27 of them are the verge articles.

I think it's best to find other references, as the article relies too heavily upon the verge articles. 1keyhole (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

r/techsupport was collecting articles & all of the official protest announcements here, it stopped updating a few days ago but hope that helps. jay peters at the verge has been reporting on information provided from a lot of different moderator teams, so, assuming the original posts don't work as sources, i think it makes sense for him to be well represented in the references Binchlord (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is. The Verge has done significant work on covering this controversy in a timely manner. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that one source used multiple times. 1keyhole (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The current "Reddit is Killing Third-Party Applications (And Itself)" image in the top section is an unnecessary element of the page and biases the article from the get-go in favor of the protesters. Additionally, the citation barely supports the caption--the article only mentions the string, not the image, and references "multiple subreddits", not "many". It feels as if the protesters are just using this image to push their position. Feels like the image should be removed (since the citation doesn't even suggest that the image existed anywhere at any point other than this Wiki article) and the mention of this string should be moved to the "Alternate forms of protest" section at best if there was better evidence for it than the existing citation. 2601:8C:4182:BBB0:45EF:9EEA:92E8:385D (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The article is largely about the protest; the api changes wouldn’t be notable at all without it. Other considered names for this article were “2023 Reddit blackout” or “2023 Reddit protests”, and so on, so given that context, it does fit. “Multiple” was probably just used because it’s easier to find citations for “more than one” than “90%”.

With most protests you could use a picture of protestors, or so on, but in a digital protest, messages like these from subreddits were mostly what it was (unless you want a blank picture of a blacked out subreddit). Also, Reddit did literally kill 3rd party apps. “And itself” is a little polarizing, but I don’t think it’s bad enough to remove it.

I guess there could be a better option but I like how this captures the protest. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

During the r/place event, hate messages were drawn and depictions of a guillotine with CEO's username on the head 1keyhole (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The lead says the dispute is ongoing. I think this is no longer the case. FunLater (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed it. FunLater (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

• What I think should be changed:

Current Copy: "...a feature which had been free since 2008, causing a dispute. The move forced multiple third-party applications to shut down and threatened accessibility applications and moderation tools."

Proposed modification to this statement "...a feature which had been free since 2008, causing a dispute. The move forced multiple third-party applications to shut down and caused comments and questions around the accessibility of applications and moderation tools by Reddit users^[1]."

• Why it should be changed: This current copy uses strong language and is not wholly accurate. Based on Reddit and moderator communications during this time, access to apps and moderations tools were not broadly threatened.

A Reddit post around the API's availability^[2] shows that API access remained free for moderator tools and bots.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Reference below showcasing information around access for moderators and applications. First reference showcases discussions amongst Reddit users on sub-reddit availability, the platform's algorithm, etc.

JAustenFan (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

JAustenFan (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Declined Adding this modified statement would necessitate the inclusion of the {{by whom}} inline maintenance template after the text "and caused questions around the accessibility of applications and moderation tools.". Currently, your proposed text does not describe who caused these questions. Regards,  Spintendo  21:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Updated! JAustenFan (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"By whom?" is a maintenance template, similar to [citation needed]. It is used for issues that require fixing. FunLater (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@FunLater Thank you for the clarification. The copy has been updated with a citation. JAustenFan (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The requested prose states and caused questions ... by Reddit users. A refnote was then provided as a source for this text (ref name=Reddit 2 https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments) The link was subtitled "comments". I guess you could say that while all questions could be considered comments, not all comments can be considered as questions. The requested prose suggests these are one in the same. A suggestion would be to change the requested prose to "created comments ... by Reddit users". Regards,  Spintendo  23:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Request has been updated to be inclusive of comments as well as questions. I kept "questions" as the reference does highlight many questions that users had around the API shift, and think that gives a well-rounded understanding of user reaction to the shift, if you agree. JAustenFan (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the wording, it's much appreciated. However, the citation style used in your proposed text does not align with that used by the article.^[a] Please submit a new edit request which includes the revised wording along with a citation style that aligns with the style currently used by the article. (See WP:CITEVAR.) Regards,  Spintendo  19:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The suggested additions to the text do not sufficiently approximate the information as given by the source reference.

• What I think should be changed:

Current Copy: "Multiple subreddits labeled themselves as not safe for work (NSFW), affecting advertisements and resulting in administrators removing the entire moderation team of some subreddits."

Proposed Copy: "Multiple subreddits labeled themselves as not safe for work (NSFW), affecting advertisements and resulting in administrators removing the entire moderation team of some subreddits. A Reddit spokesperson said the removals were due to a violation of Reddit's Content Policy and Moderator Code of Conduct, which prohibits moderators from incorrectly marking a community as NSFW. Some moderation teams were eventually reinstated while some others were not.^[1] "

• Why it should be changed: The proposed edits provide more concrete information why some moderation teams were suspended.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Reference cited discusses the incident and provides information around the code of conduct violation.

JAustenFan (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

JAustenFan (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Declined The requested prose Some moderation teams were eventually reinstated does not go far enough in explaining that other moderation teams were not reinstated, as The Verge reference states: "Other newly NSFW subs that lost their mods Thursday still don’t have them, including [three examples given] which had all gone NSFW or loosened their rules are currently unmoderated." The requested changes should more closely align with the description of events as given in the provided reference. Suggested prose: "Some moderation teams were eventually reinstated while some others were not." Regards,  Spintendo  00:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Agree with your suggested update. I have updated the request with the new wording. JAustenFan (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the wording, it's much appreciated. However, As stated in my reply given above, the citation style used in the proposed text does not align with that used by the article.^[a] Please make a new edit request which makes use of the citation style currently used in the article. (See WP:CITEVAR.) Regards,  Spintendo  19:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo I have added a new edit request below with the required citation style. Appreciate your guidance on everything! JAustenFan (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Per WP:CITEVAR.

• What I think should be changed:

Current Copy: "Announcing the changes, Reddit stated that the Reddit data aggregation site Pushshift—whose service was used by LLMs—violated its API rules; the company also said it would restrict access to adult content."

Proposed Copy Updates: "Announcing the changes, Reddit stated that the Reddit data aggregation site Pushshift—whose service was used by LLMs—violated its API rules and would be losing access to Reddit’s Data API after Reddit had been unable to contact the Pushshift team about the violations.^[1] Pushshift later announced it was live again with access to the Reddit API.^[2] The company also said it would limit access to adult content via the Data API though the change would not impact any moderator bots or extensions.^[3] "

• Why it should be changed: Updating section with more specifics on Pushshift's losing access to the API and regaining access. Part of the reason, outside of the API violations, both Reddit and Pushshift give for the loss of access was the Pushshift team not being responsive to Reddit's outreach. Also, updating the sentence around adult content. According to sources, access to adult content was not restricted but limited and the limitation did not affect moderator bots or extensions.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): References cite reasons for Pushshift losing access, their move to live status on the API and Reddit's policy around adult/explicit content.

JAustenFan (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

JAustenFan (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

As stated in both my replies given above, the citation style used in the proposed text does not align with that used by the article.^[a] Please make a new edit request which makes use of the citation style currently used in the article. (See WP:CITEVAR.) Also, please add the WikiLink for Pushshift.

Notes

Regards,  Spintendo  19:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

• What I think should be changed:

Current Copy: "Multiple subreddits labeled themselves as not safe for work (NSFW), affecting advertisements and resulting in administrators removing the entire moderation team of some subreddits."

Proposed Copy: "Multiple subreddits labeled themselves as not safe for work (NSFW), affecting advertisements and resulting in administrators removing the entire moderation team of some subreddits. A Reddit spokesperson said the removals were due to a violation of Reddit's Content Policy^[1] and Moderator Code of Conduct^[2], which prohibits moderators from incorrectly marking a community as NSFW. Some moderation teams were eventually reinstated while some others were not.^[3] "

• Why it should be changed: The proposed edits provide more concrete information why some moderation teams were suspended.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Reference cited discusses the incident and provides information around the code of conduct violation.

JAustenFan (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

JAustenFan (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Please note that by my count, there were three edit requests pending which required the change of citation styles. The only one implemented thus far has been this current request covering the text in the lead section. The other two requests need to be repeated below prior to implementation (including a Wikilink for Pushshift in one of the requests.) Regards,  Spintendo  20:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The requested prose is unclear.

• What I think should be changed:

Current Copy: "Announcing the changes, Reddit stated that the Reddit data aggregation site Pushshift—whose service was used by LLMs—violated its API rules; the company also said it would restrict access to adult content."

Proposed Copy Updates: "Announcing the changes, Reddit stated that the Reddit data aggregation site Pushshift—whose service was used by LLMs—violated its API rules and would be losing access to Reddit’s Data API after Reddit had been unable to contact the Pushshift team about the violations.^[1] Pushshift later announced it was live again with access to the Reddit API.^[2] The company Reddit also said it would limit access to adult content via the Data API, though the change "would not impact any moderator bots or extensions".^[3]

• Why it should be changed: Updating section with more specifics on Pushshift's losing access to the API and regaining access. Part of the reason, outside of the API violations, both Reddit and Pushshift give for the loss of access was the Pushshift team not being responsive to Reddit's outreach. Also, updating the sentence around adult content. According to sources, access to adult content was not restricted but limited and the limitation did not affect moderator bots or extensions.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): References cite reasons for Pushshift losing access, their move to live status on the API and Reddit's policy around adult/explicit content. Pushshift Wikilink appears unavailable.

JAustenFan (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

JAustenFan (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the citation style. I do have some issues with the text which needs clarifying. The text states Announcing the changes, Reddit stated that the Reddit data aggregation site Pushshift — whose service was used by LLMs — violated its API rules and would be losing access to Reddit’s Data API after Reddit had been unable to contact the Pushshift team about the violations. Pushshift later announced it was live again with access to the Reddit API. The company (which company? Reddit or Pushshift? As Pushshift is not Wikilinked, uninitiated readers may not be able to make a distinction between the two.) also said it would limit access to adult content via the Data API though the change would not impact any moderator bots or extensions. Text which is giving information that a company states itself ought to be placed using quotation marks -- even if it is not a direct quote. My suggestion: The company^[which?] also said it would limit access to adult content via the Data API, though this change "would not impact any moderator bots or extensions". Please clarify both issues and advise. Regards,  Spintendo  20:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Requested revisions made to the copy. JAustenFan (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any underlined text above indicating your revisions.^[a] If no such revisions were made according to those guidelines, please make a new edit request at the bottom of the talk page.^[b]

Regards,  Spintendo  19:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Updates have been made based on the required guidelines. Per the second edit, "would not impact any moderator bots or extensions".[added quotations around company quote] JAustenFan (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Following up to see if there were any additional edits needed on this request? JAustenFan (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Following up on the above to see if all is good to make the update? Thanks! JAustenFan (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

• What I think should be changed:

Current Copy: "...a feature which had been free since 2008, causing a dispute. The move forced multiple third-party applications to shut down and threatened accessibility applications and moderation tools."

Proposed modification to this statement "...a feature which had been free since 2008, causing a dispute. The move forced multiple third-party applications to shut down and created comments and caused questions created a discussion around the accessibility of applications and moderation tools by Reddit users."^[1]

• Why it should be changed: This current copy uses strong language and is not wholly accurate. Based on Reddit and moderator communications during this time, access to apps and moderations tools were not broadly threatened.

A Reddit post around the API's availability shows that API access remained free for moderator tools and bots.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Source linked above shows information around access for moderators and applications. Reference below showcases discussions amongst Reddit users on sub-reddit availability, the platform's algorithm, etc.

JAustenFan (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

JAustenFan (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The URL for the proposed source is sub-labeled "comments", not "comments and questions". To imply the information contained therein is "comments and questions" is not accurate because the reference provided is a commentary page and not FAQ. Suggested prose (my second suggestion): "The move forced multiple third-party applications to shut down and created discussion around the accessibility of applications and moderation tools by Reddit users on Reddit commentary pages." Please advise. Regards,  Spintendo  21:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Updated the language to your suggestion. JAustenFan (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any underlined text above indicating your revisions.^[a] If no such revisions were made according to those guidelines, please make a new edit request at the bottom of the talk page.^[b]

Regards,  Spintendo  19:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Thank you once more for your guidance! Lots of ins-and-outs that we are still learning. Edits have been made to the above following the guidelines. JAustenFan (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Following up on the above to see if all is good to make the update? Thanks! JAustenFan (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was unclear.

• What I think should be changed:

Current Copy: "The moderators of r/iPhone and r/Music decided to go private indefinitely beginning on June 12."

Proposed Copy: "The moderators of r/iPhone and r/Music decided to go private indefinitely beginning on June 12. As of October 2023, both r/iPhone and r/Music are public once again.^[1][2]"

• Why it should be changed: Update to highlight current standing of each sub.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Links to both subs showing they are now public again.

JAustenFan (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

JAustenFan (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The article contains 7 sections and 5 subsections. The request does not state which of these sections/subsections the requested prose should be placed into. Regards,  Spintendo  19:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Clarification made in header JAustenFan (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Following up on the above to see if all is good to make the update? Thanks! JAustenFan (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

• What I think should be changed:

Current copy: "r/nba tweeted that it would stay private "indefinitely"; the decision to go private coincided with the final game of the 2023 NBA Finals. Similarly, r/philadelphia went private following the collapse of a portion of Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania, leading to angry comments from users and requests to reopen."

Proposed copy changes: "r/nba tweeted that it would stay private "indefinitely"; the decision to go private coincided with the final game of the 2023 NBA Finals. Similarly, r/philadelphia went private following the collapse of a portion of Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania, leading to angry comments from users and requests to reopen. As of October 2023, both r/nba and r/philadelphia are once again public. Despite those two individual changes, Huffman's internal memo became the primary motivation for more than 5,000 subreddits to continue their blackout indefinitely.^[1][2]"

• Why it should be changed: Update to highlight current standing of each sub.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Links to both subs showing they are now public again.

JAustenFan (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

JAustenFan (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

A portion of text would remain in this paragraph after the proposed text was added (Huffman's internal memo became the primary motivation for more than 5,000 subreddits to continue their blackout indefinitely). Placing the proposed text before this text would throw off the flow of the paragraph's narrative discussing the "indefiniteness" of the blackout. When text is proposed to be added to a paragraph within an article, that text must respect the narrative flow of whichever paragraph they're being placed into. To that end, the COI editor is urged to consider changes that would maintain this particular paragraph's narrative flow. My suggestion: "r/nba tweeted that it would stay private "indefinitely"; the decision to go private coincided with the final game of the 2023 NBA Finals. Similarly, r/philadelphia went private following the collapse of a portion of Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania, leading to angry comments from users and requests to reopen. As of October 2023, both r/nba and r/philadelphia were once again public. Despite those two individual changes, Huffman's internal memo became the primary motivation for more than 5,000 subreddits to continue their blackout indefinitely. — or something to that effect, so that the text's narrative flows coherently within the paragraph. Please advise with any feedback and/or suggestions. Regards,  Spintendo  00:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Updates have been made and underlined above. JAustenFan (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo Following up on the above to see if all is good to make the update? Thanks! JAustenFan (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

• What I think should be changed:

Current Copy: "Announcing the changes, Reddit stated that the Reddit data aggregation site Pushshift—whose service was used by LLMs—violated its API rules; the company also said it would restrict access to adult content."

Proposed Copy Updates: "Announcing the changes, Reddit stated that the Reddit data aggregation site Pushshift—whose service was used by LLMs—violated its API rules and would be losing access to Reddit’s Data API after Reddit had been unable to contact the Pushshift team about the violations.^[1] Pushshift later announced it was live again with access to the Reddit API.^[2] The company Reddit also said it would limit access to adult content via the Data API, though the change "would not impact any moderator bots or extensions."^[3]

• Why it should be changed: Updating section with more specifics on Pushshift's losing access to the API and regaining access. Part of the reason, outside of the API violations, both Reddit and Pushshift give for the loss of access was the Pushshift team not being responsive to Reddit's outreach. Also, updating the sentence around adult content. According to sources, access to adult content was not restricted but limited and the limitation did not affect moderator bots or extensions.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): References cite reasons for Pushshift losing access, their move to live status on the API and Reddit's policy around adult/explicit content. Pushshift Wikilink appears unavailable.

JAustenFan (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

JAustenFan (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Not done: Declined due to lack of third-party sourcing. Quetstar (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Quetstar Updates are generally geared to providing greater context to existing copy. There would be no third-party sources as this paragraph is in regards to internal Reddit conversations/business. Let me know your thoughts. JAustenFan (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I have zero confidence in anything Reddit has said about this, especially the 3rd source. Quetstar (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If there aren't independent reliable sources, it seems UNDUE. Endorse @Quetstar's decision. —siroχo 16:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

• What I think should be changed:

Current Copy: "The moderators of r/iPhone and r/Music decided to go private indefinitely beginning on June 12."

Proposed Copy: "The moderators of r/iPhone and r/Music decided to go private indefinitely beginning on June 12. As of October 2023, both r/iPhone and r/Music are public once again.^[1][2]"

• Why it should be changed: Update to highlight current standing of each sub.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Links to both subs showing they are now public again.

JAustenFan (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

JAustenFan (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Not done: No confidence as well as a lack of third-party sourcing. Quetstar (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Quetstar The update is essentially correcting the inaccuracy of the statement that is currently on the page, which is that the subreddits went "private indefinitely." They are no longer private, so the current paragraph is incorrect. The only way to show they are not private anymore is by showing them live on the Reddit site. Appreciate that third-party sources are necessary for most additions/updates, but, in this case, I see no other way to show that the pages are no longer private than to literally show them on the site as public. JAustenFan (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

• What I think should be changed:

Current copy: "r/nba tweeted that it would stay private "indefinitely"; the decision to go private coincided with the final game of the 2023 NBA Finals. Similarly, r/philadelphia went private following the collapse of a portion of Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania, leading to angry comments from users and requests to reopen. Huffman's internal memo became the primary motivation for more than 5,000 subreddits to continue their blackout indefinitely."

Proposed copy changes: "r/nba tweeted that it would stay private "indefinitely"; the decision to go private coincided with the final game of the 2023 NBA Finals. Similarly, r/philadelphia went private following the collapse of a portion of Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania, leading to angry comments from users and requests to reopen. As of October 2023, both r/nba and r/philadelphia are once again public. Despite those two individual changes, Huffman's internal memo became the primary motivation for more than 5,000 subreddits to continue their blackout indefinitely.^[1][2]"

• Why it should be changed: Update to highlight current standing of each sub.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Links to both subs showing they are now public again.

JAustenFan (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

JAustenFan (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Not done: Same reason as the other one. Quetstar (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Quetstar Please see reply above. JAustenFan (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Ars Technica, just like Reddit, is owned by Condé Nast. Wouldn't this be a conflict of interest to use a source from them? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

They seem fairly critical of Reddit, so they're probably not particularly biased. Anyway, Reddit doesn't own them, which would be worse. Condé Nast has an interest in Reddit, but Ars Technica itself doesn't. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This controversy occurred two years ago. There should be a section on if, when, and how it was resolved (or what the current status of the dispute is). Readers would like to know. 2603:3003:48EA:7100:440:A8D8:77AD:B446 (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)