I saw it in a post about people getting temp bans for simply stating that EU allies would be right to defend Greenland in case of military action. Might just have been one of several grievances with Reddit at the moment though

[–] WonderRin@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Woah, I haven't heard about this. Are those temp bans on specific subreddits or a site-wide ban for not being pro-Trump?

[–] SirHaxalot@nord.red 5 points 6 days ago (2 children)

It was 3 day site wide bans as I understood it. Reason given was that saying that Greenland should defend itself was "threatening violence".

The thread in question, thing it is in r/Sweden https://www.reddit.com/r/sweden/s/BvEiqSM2cf

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 5 days ago

then the 3 day sitewide bans end often leads to a shadow ban or sitewide ban, for unkown reasons for your part. as soon as they sniff other accounts you mave or deleted you are toast.

[–] WonderRin@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I'm probably applying too much logic here which Reddit admins don't seem to like, but... how can defending oneself if something happens (not even preemptively, but after the fact) be threatening violence, while Trump repeatedly saying they're gonna own Greenland one way or another is not threatening violence?

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 5 days ago

theres also other easy ways apparently to get banned too, "reporting people if the mods dont agree you can get permantly banned yourself". or your comments are too spammy or to similar to bots.

[–] cinoreus@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ipo

[–] JamieDub86@piefed.social 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That was the big one, but there was something else smaller last year.

[–] cinoreus@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What?

[–] JamieDub86@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago

There was something else that happened last autumn/winter that made it even shittier. Cant remember any info and its doing my head in.