The exact wording seems to be "banned content", which includes a lot more than just violence (is violence banned in the first place, considering subs like r/PublicFreakout?).

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Yeah tbh if it were just violent content I'd be fine with that. I still don't trust Reddit as a platform anymore, but I'd be 100% understanding of the rule.

Banned/Removed-by-Admin content, though? That's absurd. That's way too broad.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"Violent content" could also be videos of officer misconduct, and there's the whole can of worms of what "promoting violence" means.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Fair

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Guarantee something like posting a picture of Luigi will be considered banned content promoting violence.

Edit: Called it

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

Well tbf most of those are unless you're saying "I don't think this is the killer" or resharing a news article. He's not celebrated for pacifism.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works -4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I think it's advocating violence, and extreme violence (things like terrorist beheading videos and such) that are banned. Things like Waffle House fights likely won't meet the banning threshold.

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 16 points 3 days ago

I assume this is prompted by Luigi-inspired death threats to CEOs. If they are monitoring this so closely, I bet the FBI might want to take a look at those records too...

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

I think it very well could, as well as any other reddit corporate agenda such as removing content at request of pieces of shit who punch and berate service staff and then later sue to remove said content from the internet. It's a necessary distinction.