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 12 hours 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 12 points 12 hours 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 4 points 12 hours ago

Fair

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours 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 -2 points 12 hours 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 13 points 12 hours 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 12 hours 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.