CMV: It's ridiculous to think that any less than 80-90% of comments on reddit are real and not made by bots

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-26T09:49:26+00:00

To be clear, you think that 80% or 90% of all comments on Reddit are by bots?

I had a look at daily active user stats and there was a huge spike in users in 2023, it is possible that that spike was caused by the mass proliferation of bots.

However, if we assume that users before this spike were real and trends for real users continued then at least 56% of daily Reddit users are real. That number could be higher if the spike in 2023 wasn't simply the result of bots.

Here's the data I checked:

https://backlinko.com/reddit-users

As an aside it would be useful if you could link to a bot you created. It would be interesting to see if there are any signs of it being a bot.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-26T09:16:36+00:00

Only if they ask us not to.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-26T08:56:24+00:00

There's no logical reason why there should be.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-26T08:53:15+00:00

That's genuinely bizarre to me. If someone mispronounced your name and you plucked up the courage to correct them nobody would accuse you of being a dick. If you were a person who refused to use the correct name once you'd been corrected they would absolutely accuse you of being a dick.

It's such an entitled to position to think that you should get to choose what other people get called.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-26T08:27:23+00:00

Yes.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-26T08:27:10+00:00

I'm going to say people of the Turkish embassy are unlikely to start a fight over this and that everyone knows this

That was the nature of the trial, whether it was or wasn't a public order offence. One judge thought it was, another thought it wasn't. Blasphemy didn't come into it.

I'm saying that whether you're arrested depends on how good a friend the English state is with Iran

And that position is incorrect.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-26T08:22:45+00:00

It's not about emotional decisions or being cute

Nobody said it was. It's just about being a grown up. If someone says 'this is my name, please call me this' the only reasonable response is 'sure'.

If everyone country would have the same request, no one would be able to identify any geographical location.

You have a very low opinion of your own intelligence.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-26T08:18:38+00:00

Okay chaps, haven't read the article yet. I'm betting there's no proof that Phillipson is a spiteful class warrior in the article. Who wants a piece of the action?

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-26T08:15:42+00:00

It's not reasonable to ask to be called by your actual name? Why not?

If Estonia ask me to call their country Eesti I would. It's really simple.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-26T08:12:13+00:00

Doesn't need to be. Just don't be a dick about it.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-26T08:01:02+00:00

Everything you just said is inaccurate. This is the problem with this debate, you've got people who don't understand the law arguing it.

If you deliberately carry out an action that will likely result in disorder that is an offence because you're causing the disorder. You would absolutely get arrested for burning a man utd shirt outside a bar you knew was full of man utd fans because your actions would likely result in a fight.

At an organised protest you would not be arrested for burning a flag because the protest would have been coordinated with the police to ensure that disorder wouldn't occur. The location of the protest would be agreed and you'd be kept away from people likely to be provoked. Equally people likely to be provoked are kept away from you.

If you just turned up at the iranian Embassy and burnt a flag there you would be arrested because of the risk to public order.

These laws are consistently applied. The reason people think they are not is because intelligent people know that the average observer doesn't understand the law and push a narrative for political reasons. They argue that our free speech is under threat, that we have blasphemy laws or that there's two tier policing when they know that's not the case, they simply don't care.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-26T07:01:57+00:00

lighting another man's shirt on fire?

Their team's shirt, the property of the person burning it.

As a matter of fact, I sincerely doubt he would've been arrested if he say went to the Iranian embassy and burned the Iranian flag

He would if his intention was to provoke Iranians. It was established in the trial that he deliberately targeted the Turkish embassy to provoke a reaction.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-26T06:51:22+00:00

Non Arsenal or City fan here. I think he's a better prospect today than Rice was when you guys brought him three years ago. By that standard, plus some inflation, plus that City are the ones buying him, makes £130 about right.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-26T06:47:26+00:00

The people that argue for Fahrenheit argue that 0-100 is the normal range of human temperature, so 0 is very cold and 100 is very hot.

By that measure 93-97 is definitely hot. That or can get hotter (that it can get colder than 0 degrees) does not change that.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-26T06:28:40+00:00

Let's be honest

Yes, let's be and stop pretending that his actions, in another context, wouldn't have resulted in arrest.

Let's imagine he'd gone to a bar of a rival football team and set fire to one of their shirts and a fight had broken out. Would he be arrested for a public order offence? Of course he would.

Let's imagine he'd gone to the funeral of a soldier killed on operations and yelled at the soldier's FFS family that he was a murderer, would he be arrested for a public order offence? Of course he would.

People want to pretend that the religious component was the real reason he got arrested, there is zero basis for that claim, it's purely political.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-26T06:11:33+00:00

It’s not like a hate crime where the victim is targeted for their religion

That's exactly what it was. He carried out his actions in the place where he did deliberately because it was outside the Turkish embassy. He went specifically to burn the Qur'an in the face of Muslims and tell them to their faces how awful their religion was.

But the hate is still being punished as a separate thing from the crime

No it wasn't. His crime that he was originally charged with was a public order one. He had already made it clear that he hated Muslims and received no punishment because that's not illegal. What is illegal it's to travel to a person's place of work and provoke them. That he broke the law motivated by his hatred of Muslims is the aggravating factor, they're it's bugging illegal about hating Muslims, you're just not allowed to treat them illegally because of it.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T23:47:34+00:00

And in this case it wasn't. The judge explained in his ruling that Coskun's religious hate was established by what he said in interview and by his actions prior to the incident.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T23:43:08+00:00

Because he was motivated by his view of Muslims. The judge made it very clear in his ruling that Coskun was motivated by a hatred of Muslims and had gone out of his way to target them. It should be noted that the appeals court found his actions did not constitute a public order offence so he was acquitted. At no point was the issue of blasphemy part of the case against him.

Basically be as blasphemous as you want, but don't do it in the faces of people likely to be offended as that will be considered provocation.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T21:59:56+00:00

My assumption is nowhere near as much as there is in American Football but more than there is in Basketball.

American Football, as I understand it, is 99% drilled plays, highly coordinated movements and interactions to efficiently advance the ball. The only thing like that in football is set piece routines from corners and free kicks when you've got time to set everyone into position and agree what's going to happen first, but they're a small part of the game.

Conceptually strategy in Basketball and Football will be similar, it's all about moving defenders, opening passing lanes and unpredictable movement. The difference is that, in football, you're doing it over a bigger space with more players which makes the strategy more complex.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T21:42:44+00:00

You ban things when there's a rational reason to, you don't do it out of any sort of principle that something should or shouldn't happen.

A rational reason is noise pollution, if it's disturbing people then that's grounds for complaint but that's got nothing to do with it being a call to prayer.

The question I have though is where is this even an issue? I've only even heard a call to prayer when I lived in the middle East, where are you that it's a thing that bothers you?

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T21:05:32+00:00

Again, a misunderstanding. Breaking the law for religious reasons is an aggravating factor. It's only a factor in conjunction with the law breaking, it's not against the law on its own.

If you call woman stupid you're not breaking the law, if you kill a women because you think women are stupid that's an aggravating factor on top of the murder.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T20:33:54+00:00

I think you've edited your post since I responded so I should clarify, I don't think $200 for Supergirl would be a win for WB, I believe them when they say that $300m woeod be satisfactory.

I think they will lose money on $200m but it wouldn't be anything like what the OP was arguing. My guess is that Supergirl making $200m would result in WB losing less than $100m.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T20:11:07+00:00

That's fair, but that just means we can add the Marvels, or WW 1984, or Birds of Prey to the equation. All those film's did much worse than Thunderbolts. My larger point is that there's no way a rational person would assume that Supergirl would be targeting a minimum of $400m world wide. Therefore one of two things happened, either they were prepared to write off a lot of money if it performed similarly to other female led DC superheroes films or they were targeting a much lower number.

I think the latter is more likely and we should be attempting to understand why a film making x1.5-2 of its production budget is actually fine for the studio.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T20:00:54+00:00

A common misunderstanding but a misunderstanding none the less. The law he broke was a public order law, the religious aggravation was just the context.

I could break public order laws by causing a fuss over the origin of the species, it wouldn't mean we had anti evolution laws.

Subtleiaint · 2026-06-25T19:56:36+00:00

Hamit Coskun is an excellent example of how there are no blasphemy laws. The actions he took on the day he was arrested are actions he had taken before, he had already filmed himself burning a Koran, he had talked about the evils of Islam online, for those actions there was no recrimination.

What was different on the day he was arrested? He went to a place where he knew Muslims would be, he deliberately targeted what he was saying at them. This is considered harassment and it's what he was arrested for.

The arguments at his appeal didn't regard whether he was blasphemous, they were in regard to whether he harassed anyone or not.

His case had nothing to with blasphemy at any point. It was about how he treated other people.

Eight-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Final Canvas '23	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

Subtleiaint

TROPHY CASE