> People don't seem to recognize that someone replying so negatively and provocatively isn't engaging in good faith.
People can disagree with you and be in good faith. It's a common tactic to say someone who disagrees with you but you can't prove wrong is engaging in bad faith.
Let's have a solid look at this interaction.
* Someone says Reddit is user hostile.
* I claim it's not.
* Someone claim's they're actively making the website worse. A claim that can't be backed up.
* Same person claims requiring people to login to acces to content marked for 18+ is hostile. This is an absurd claim. A website shouldn't have any measure to ensure a user is old enough to access the content they're legally required to ensure they're old enough to access?
* Someone claims that they can't use the website on their iPad. I boot up my cheap iPad and use it quite easily. I didn't even get prompts I expected to get that would tell me to use the app. I used both new and old versions. I assume the person isn't lying and that if they're unable to use it it's because their hardware oboslete.
* Various people claim trying to get people to use your app over a website is hostile. Really, having a preferred way to use your site is hostile? All the other methods are available even old.reddit.com which should be discontinued. So while continuing to provide multiple user interfaces and supporting older ones to make users happy. They claim they're hostile.
The reality is, the evidence doesn't back up the claims. To claim I'm either an idiot or a troll engaging in bad faith really is the height of bad manners.
Reddit isn't hostile to it's users. It has users that are hostile to it. People who feel so entitled to a free site that they think any attempt to make it better for users who aren't them is hostile. Absolute entitlement. The tech community is one of the most entitled communties I've seen.
The problem lies partially in the fact that you haven't defined what "user hostile" means. (In fact, neither of you have. And you could try to [disingenuously] argue that the burden to define it lies with the person you're responding to and that you don't have any such burden, but that would be a junk argument—provably wrong, since the claim that it's not user hostile is as strong of a claim as claiming that it is.) So, a simple litmus test to see if you're acting in good faith: simply state which definition of "user hostile" you're using. Place the goalposts.
What is a definition of the phrase that, if it were observed/shown/proven, you would concede that the subject of the discussion is guilty of acting in a user hostile way?
> * Someone claim's they're actively making the website worse. A claim that can't be backed up.
I have a few examples I can observe myself. It's not documented, so it may not be considered "backed up", but it makes me avoid Reddit as much as I can, no matter how valuable it may be
1. The mobile interface of Reddit used to have option "Ask to Open in App" (it defaulted as checked), which prompts many banner about downloading app almost every click. Right now, the option disappeared; only Dark Mode remains.
2. At some point, visiting the main page of a particular subreddit on mobile will be blocked with "This community is available in the App". Later on, Reddit claimed (or the moderator of subreddit may claim) that the topic is mature and can only be viewed by 18+ users, when the subreddit or the topic isn't really something mature (I recall seeing it in a subreddit that operates as a de facto support forum of an Android app I use) and that it forced me to download the app, even though the app is seriously sluggish, to put it mildly
Sure, both of these examples may be resolved by switching to desktop mode or use the old.reddit, but doing so means I will have significant difficulty to scale the content to match the size of the small screen. For some, it may not be considered worse, but for me, the inability to read it the way it used to be means they are sabotaging it for the worse
People don't seem to recognize that someone replying so negatively and provocatively isn't engaging in good faith.
They're either an idiot or a troll, and neither is worth the effort. Downvote, flag, move on.