81–90 of 146 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would reddit block them?
I imagine that over time they’ll update their 1st party clients to use authentication, and if they’re really motivated they could implement some kind of token binding. It would surprise me if this isn’t in their near term plans given the apparent urgency they have to shut down the APIs.
You can do the opposite: take the Reddit apps that aren't working anymore, do a one line change [1] (to use https://api.rings.social ) and you're now able to use a Reddit client to browse Rings [2][3] - a Reddit API compatible content-voting platform licensed as AGPLv3. [1]: https://github.com/rings-social/Infinity-For-Rings/commit/cd... [2]: https://rings.social [3]: https://github.com/rings-social
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine that over time they’ll update their 1st party clients to use authentication, and if they’re really motivated they could implement some kind of token binding. It would surprise me if this isn’t in their near term plans given the apparent urgency they have to shut down the APIs.
How would that work exactly? Wouldn't this library be able to pretend to be a 1st party client?
Worth noting that most browsers don’t support token binding yet, but this has been in the works for awhile, so I’m mentioning it here for illustrative purposes. They could theoretically implement something less airtight but with the same general goal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine that over time they’ll update their 1st party clients to use authentication, and if they’re really motivated they could implement some kind of token binding. It would surprise me if this isn’t in their near term plans given the apparent urgency they have to shut down the APIs.
Unless they block web browsers too, ain't gonna work (and even then, still probably wouldn't work). Any app can simulate a regular web browser.
Call me cynical but building a client for a user hostile service is a sign of a Stockholm syndrome.
I wouldn't say Reddit is user hostile. Recent actions have been to make profitable companies pay for API access. That isn't hostile to users. It's hostile to parasite companies who make a profit from your product while taking away from your revenue. There are a select group of users who decided to vandalise the site in response. They were allowed to do so for a small period of time. In fact, some hardcore groups are…
I think what has happened is that Reddit have looked to Imgur, TikTok, Shorts, Instagram and other social media sites and noticed that Reddit wasn't facilitating doom scrolling in the same way. Reddit users are engaged with the site longer, I'd assume, but see fewer ads, because they remain on the same post. Management would very much like to change that. It's sad, because it shows zero engangement with the site and the users, it just an audience. They're taking their existing product at transforming it to just another scroller app, using the existing users as a means to get the ball rolling.
Call me cynical but building a client for a user hostile service is a sign of a Stockholm syndrome.
To see Reddit as having no value, a person's ideology would have to outweigh all those benefits. If it's a bad business, then all of that value it provides for all of those people wouldn't be worth whatever Reddit asked in return. Most still accept Reddit's terms for what the site offers them in return.
Much of the turmoil was about API fees. I'm happy to pay their fee to do more good for people. It might not have acceptable cost-benefit for everyone's use, though. I can definitely imagine better ways to do it for sure. That might include free blocks of or discounted calls to the API for OSS developers, academics, and Reddit Gold members (even if only 100-1000 for personal use). As an I.P.O.-focused startup, I accept that they're going to do what's good for their bottom line.
Let's say you want the situation to improve. For such companies, you can try to propose to decision-makers suggestions like above that increase value to everyone (including them!) with low or no extra cost. That's speaking their language. For avoiding harmful lock-in, people can (a) avoiding putting critical data in for-profit services or (b) keep backups of their data off-site in form OSS software can easily host. You can get a free copy of your Reddit data, too, at the link below:
https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/36004304835...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't feed the troll.
Thank you . People don't seem to recognize that someone replying so negatively and provocatively isn't engaging in good faith. They're either an idiot or a troll, and neither is worth the effort. Downvote, flag, move on.
People can disagree with you and be in good faith. It's a common tactic to say someone who disagrees with you but you can't prove wrong is engaging in bad faith.
Let's have a solid look at this interaction.
* Someone says Reddit is user hostile.
* I claim it's not.
* Someone claim's they're actively making the website worse. A claim that can't be backed up.
* Same person claims requiring people to login to acces to content marked for 18+ is hostile. This is an absurd claim. A website shouldn't have any measure to ensure a user is old enough to access the content they're legally required to ensure they're old enough to access?
* Someone claims that they can't use the website on their iPad. I boot up my cheap iPad and use it quite easily. I didn't even get prompts I expected to get that would tell me to use the app. I used both new and old versions. I assume the person isn't lying and that if they're unable to use it it's because their hardware oboslete.
* Various people claim trying to get people to use your app over a website is hostile. Really, having a preferred way to use your site is hostile? All the other methods are available even old.reddit.com which should be discontinued. So while continuing to provide multiple user interfaces and supporting older ones to make users happy. They claim they're hostile.
The reality is, the evidence doesn't back up the claims. To claim I'm either an idiot or a troll engaging in bad faith really is the height of bad manners.
Reddit isn't hostile to it's users. It has users that are hostile to it. People who feel so entitled to a free site that they think any attempt to make it better for users who aren't them is hostile. Absolute entitlement. The tech community is one of the most entitled communties I've seen.
Call me cynical but building a client for a user hostile service is a sign of a Stockholm syndrome.
This network effect is what Reddit management is banking on with these changes (or at least, I assume so!). It definitely exists, but management seems to underestimate the long term effects of user hostile behaviour.
You can do the opposite: take the Reddit apps that aren't working anymore, do a one line change [1] (to use https://api.rings.social ) and you're now able to use a Reddit client to browse Rings [2][3] - a Reddit API compatible content-voting platform licensed as AGPLv3. [1]: https://github.com/rings-social/Infinity-For-Rings/commit/cd... [2]: https://rings.social [3]: https://github.com/rings-social
if you're going to take the "pain" of moving away from the network effect of your existing walled garden, surely it would better to move to something with a better governance model, like a federated solution? Lemmy is far from perfect but I have found it to provide a lot of what I looked for in Reddit's absence.
[I only really use Reddit on mobile, and so with the absence of decent mobile apps Reddit is effectively shut down for me]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine that over time they’ll update their 1st party clients to use authentication, and if they’re really motivated they could implement some kind of token binding. It would surprise me if this isn’t in their near term plans given the apparent urgency they have to shut down the APIs.
How would that work exactly? Wouldn't this library be able to pretend to be a 1st party client?