It's pretty clear that their focus is no longer on providing the best communities (see the many examples of power hungry mods, see below) or the best UX (see the deprecation of the API or the recent changes to old.reddit.com described in the post).

The "product" is now selling data to LLM companies, everything else is clearly a secondary concern. It's a shame because at some point I really enjoyed participating on Reddit and it was a good source of valuable information.

to give some examples of mod abuse:

- /r/energy used to (or still does?) ban anyone in favour of nuclear power

- /r/ubisoft and /r/assasinscreed do not allow any posts criticizing the writing or characters, these are clearly run by the company

- /r/unitedkingdom is famous for shadow banning everyone who's critical of some government program (I got a ban for criticizing motability cars)

- /r/europe banned me 1 minute after submitting a chat control post that got 1.5k upvotes before it was removed - some vaccination subs ban anyone who posted in anti-vaccination subs (irrespective of what they post)

Copyright should last ten years, at the very maximum 15 years, after publication. This is an entirely solved problem. The solution is just not implemented because in reality copyright is not about incentivizing authors at all.

> Maybe there was only public interest in their work later on in their career and suddenly their early work was now considered valuable.

Sucks for them. No reason to grant indefinite copyright.

> Or if it's 20 years from the date something was made available to the public, then you could reset the clock by creating a slightly different work

No, you couldn't. Why would a derivative work prolong the copyright term of the original? The derivative work would have copyright on its own if it had significant additional creative input (so not just spelling corrections). The original is entirely unaffected by this. Derivative works are already a settled concept in copyright. Nothing about them is new or special.

I even subscribe to one for Metal for $10/months they’ll give you a new album every month like one of those old CD clubs. Interviews and listening parties too.

If you are looking for a sense of community like radio used to have, it’s a lot closer than podcasts IMO. Everyone has a podcast but this is something else.

There are lots of famous artists that made art before color image capture and reproduction (1930s-60s) and digital image capture and reproduction (90s-00s).

Copyrightless artist fame and economic viability is enabled by a lack of widely-accessible, cheap reproductive methods.

> You mean like right now? Here is A24 claiming copyright for Backrooms related media...

Since resolved: https://kotaku.com/backrooms-director-kane-parsons-a24-copyr...

Turns out when you outsource copyright policing to minimum wage folks, ambiguity goes out the window.

> Society actively misses out a lot. We could have had tons of derivative art that has been buried for the sake of propping up companies. We could have had Aaron Swartz. Abolish copyright.

The problem with absolutist arguments is that they ignore inconvenient facts.

At a time when creative and art economics is under siege, how would copyrightless art make enough money for the creators?

The fact of the acquisition of large swaths of copyright rights by large corporations does not negate the fact that artists need food (and ideally, a place to live and a way to provide for their family).

There are positions that might enable that (Hey, what if we banned the assignment of copyright to corporations? Human only? Original creator only?), but none of them are stripping all rights from intellectual property.

In 1-2 years, you won't be able to browse the internet without scanning a body part and providing a ID for your ass.

https://www.gadgetreview.com/reddit-user-uncovers-who-is-beh...