It’s pretty crazy that "Reddit refused to define the term “accessibility-focused app”. How are they going to determine which apps have free API access without this definition!?
They have a definition, they just won’t tell the users because it’s not a realistic definition and they plan to pull the rug out later on.
If third-party apps were only 3% of total traffic and reddit was willing to destroy its image and massively increase the viability of its only competitor just before IPO over it, I’m sure they’ll have no problem getting rid of whatever percentage of blind people who can’t see the ads reddit wants to serve anyway.
They have the same problem with “moderator-focused tools.” Lots of third party tools are useful for moderation, but aren’t necessarily composed only of moderator-specific functions. Analysis of what public activity a specific user has engaged in, like where they’re active and what kinds of comments they tend to make, are helpful for moderators to decide how to handle a report that a particular user is a serial harasser, a troll, a spammer, or a bot.
So which tools get an exemption from the API fees/rate limits, if they’re useful for both moderation and just plain old people watching?
How are they going to determine which apps have free API access without this definition!?
If there’s one thing that I’ve learned from this trainwreck, it’s that they’re not going to define it publicly. If the internal definition is fluid, it can serve as a moving target to be whatever is most beneficial to them at the time.
It’s pretty crazy that "Reddit refused to define the term “accessibility-focused app”. How are they going to determine which apps have free API access without this definition!?
They have a definition, they just won’t tell the users because it’s not a realistic definition and they plan to pull the rug out later on.
If third-party apps were only 3% of total traffic and reddit was willing to destroy its image and massively increase the viability of its only competitor just before IPO over it, I’m sure they’ll have no problem getting rid of whatever percentage of blind people who can’t see the ads reddit wants to serve anyway.
They have the same problem with “moderator-focused tools.” Lots of third party tools are useful for moderation, but aren’t necessarily composed only of moderator-specific functions. Analysis of what public activity a specific user has engaged in, like where they’re active and what kinds of comments they tend to make, are helpful for moderators to decide how to handle a report that a particular user is a serial harasser, a troll, a spammer, or a bot.
So which tools get an exemption from the API fees/rate limits, if they’re useful for both moderation and just plain old people watching?
If there’s one thing that I’ve learned from this trainwreck, it’s that they’re not going to define it publicly. If the internal definition is fluid, it can serve as a moving target to be whatever is most beneficial to them at the time.