I think I’ve got 60-ish hours in, but the last 20 or so of those were me forcing myself to play because I’d paid for the battle pass and wanted to at least finish it. It’s still not done and I’ve since given up on the idea.

I may return in another couple years depending on the state of the game at that point, but for right now I’ve moved on to other things.

If anything, I think the r/diving example would have been a good choice to include alongside the others. It demonstrates how something that’s already risky can quickly turn even more dangerous when inexperienced (or outright deceitful) mods are appointed.

It’s not that I find the examples in the article to be wrong, more that they give the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the author really had to dive deep to find any material to support their view. It gives off the same vibes as the articles claiming everyone’s outraged about ABC, when really the whole thing is based off three tweets and a TikTok. I’m not in any way trying to say that that’s what’s actually going on here, merely that it’s the way the article reads (at least to me).

While I enjoy some Reddit drama every now and again as much as the next person, this article had a plenty of words but very little substance. A few former mods are concerned that new mods don’t have the proper knowledge and background to moderate effectively (but with no concrete examples of a post’s misinformation directly leading to harm), and researchers are worried they may no longer be able to use Reddit data for their studies (although Reddit has a policy around research-based access and is working with Pushshift to improve access).

These examples feel cherry-picked, and the article itself says that it’s too soon to say whether or not content quality was impacted by the API changes and mod replacements. Without actual data - or at least many more examples of specific concerns that weren’t present before the changes - it doesn’t do much other than say “a few people are worried that something bad might happen.”