1032
A Reddit moderation tool is flagging ‘Luigi’ as potentially violent content
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2025
1032 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
68723 readers
3034 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What the fuck is this? We’re granting corporate spokespeople anonymity now?
You give it to whoever asks for it or you never get another source again.
This isn’t a “source”. This is a corporate spokesperson
Was this corporate spokesperson authorized to talk to this outlet about this topic? Just because they're a spokesperson doesn't mean they can talk freely.
Yes, that’s what a spokesperson is. Did you read the article? If it was a leak that would have been stated.
...its both
Even though it's a corporate spokesperson, they wouldn't have requested anonymity if they were allowed to talk about it...
Untrue. Reddit employees doing what their bosses tell them to are justifiably afraid of the blowback. Reminds me of the directive to not wear Reddit branding with the 3rd party app thing These folks don't want targets on their back.
That’s not what they do according to their own ethics statement
https://www.theverge.com/ethics-statement
I'm not reading that. What are you saying?
Take the link and scroll down to the section titled “ON BACKGROUND”
Edit: I never learn how to not try to be helpful to hostile commenters. I’m legit just trying to clarify or explain.
I tried to help someone who prefaced their confusion with an assertion that they were unwilling to read the linked material. This one’s on me, I guess.
I still don't get it. Nothing there says a spokesperson is not a source. Which is good because saying such a thing would make absolutely no sense.
Don't know what makes you label me as "hostile", I'm legit just trying to understand.
It's like 12 paragraphs of non-sense. The person who looked it up and shared the link could just as easily have copied and shared the relevant portion.
A corporate spokesperson spoke to them “on background”. A “corporate communications professional speaking to [them] in [their] official capacity“ has the option detailed in that section to request anonymity while being quoted.
There must have been an agreement between The Verge and the corporate representative to speak without being identified beyond their affiliation with the company, as described In the section titled “on background”.
Once again, none of this contradicts what I said.
“Nothing there said the spokesperson is not a source”
They said in their statements that they wouldn’t identify a corporate spokesperson as a “source familiar”. That language — corporate spokesperson — is intended to avoid describing the representative as an actual “source” in the sense of identifying them as a leak.
Uhh, isn't that kinda against the whole point of being a spokesperson in the first place? To put a name and a face behind a message?
Dunno why The Verge plays along.
Because The Verge wants them to return their calls. It's not like it matters. Spokespeople aren't the ones making decisions. It's the C-suits, which is publicly available.
Actually, yeah. Otherwise, you fuck up whistleblowing. They could be in the position, realize what's happening is wrong, be documenting it, trying to get out, etc...
Are you seriously suggesting there is no way to grant whistleblowers anonymity without granting it to corporate spokespeople providing statements on behalf of the company? You’re a fucking idiot