Secondly, that story does not say what you say it does. What Reddit is doing is actually warning people that they are interacting with the site in the manner of coordinated bots. Certainly you aren't suggesting they should just banhammer at first blush, isn't a warning a nicety?
Whether or not these are botnet operators complaining that the site has developed defenses against them is a questoin for the reader, but the fact remains that something gets posted, something gets flagged, and if that happens to be coincidentally the only (or most of) the stuff you upvote, then the defenses start falling into place to your detriment.
How would you deal with the problem as I've stated it (accounts that only upvote stuff that winds up getting removed)?
With all those words you typed you could have done a whole lot of googling to find a source befitting your standards. Reddit sends you warnings, several of them, before banning your account if you upvote things it doesn't like. I know because it happened to me.
That's not a problem as I see it so I don't need a better source telling me it is a problem. And you know just as well as I do that it's not, "things it doesn't like."
Well that was quite a read. What is wrong with a content provider upholding its publicly stated policies?
I'll accept it is a bit strange that POTUS might be deemed afowl of their policies but POTUS never used to tweet, twaddle or play silly buggers beyond what was expected, until this one.
POTUS seems to have decided that despite being the leader of the free world, his message isn't getting across via the entire world's media. So he uses Twitter.
