Reddit will require you to log in to use old.reddit.com 25%

By Scharon Harding40%

6/30/2026, 9:46:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Authority, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 13.5% saturation with 93 hits. Analysis detected 1,024 faulty-reasoning hits from 687 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.1% and a BS Rank of 25% (16,560 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 75.70% of the article peer group.

Reddit will start requiring people to be logged into Reddit to use old.reddit.com. 
The new requirement will take effect “over the next month,” a Reddit employee going by the username boat-botany announced on the social media platform today. 
The person claimed that the change is part of an ongoing effort to “tighten how automated systems access Reddit.” 
The Reddit employee wrote: 
> Old Reddit’s logged-out experience is a significant source of abusive scraping and automated traffic on the platform. 
It’s also an important interface for many long-time mods and Redditors. 
To strike the right balance between preserving your access to Old Reddit while preventing abusive scraping and automated traffic, over the next month we will start requiring everyone to log in. 
In a follow-up comment, boat-botany defined abusive behavior as that which violates Reddit’s rule prohibiting activity that interferes with the platform’s “normal use” or that “create[s] programs or applications” that break Reddit’s (controversial) API rules. 
“By logging in, we get a lot more signal that allows us to detect whether an account is breaking the rules, and then we can block that traffic or enforce those accounts,” boat-botany said. 
As of this writing, Ars was still able to use old.reddit.com without logging in. 
The news is likely to upset some longtime Reddit users who have relied on old.reddit.com for a familiar look that they find easier to navigate and digest and who also want to view Reddit without logging in for convenience and/or privacy. 
When a user asked boat-botany why New Reddit isn’t scraped as often as Old Reddit, the Reddit employee pointed to a comment by another user. 
“[T]he shape of malicious traffic is always changing,” the user, Nestramutat, wrote. 
“It’s going to be a constant cat and mouse game[.] 
As you ban one method, a new one gets developed. 
It’s easy to see abusive traffic in hindsight, but it’s harder to pre-emptively block it. 
Given that they’re claiming Old Reddit doesn’t have the modern security stack, this is likely proving to be an even greater challenge.” 
Nestramutat also said that the login requirement won’t eliminate malicious traffic but will add a barrier against threat actors. 
“You’re also now attaching an account ID to every malicious request, plus account creation is only available on New Reddit (with the enhanced security stack),” they added. 
The Old Reddit login requirement follows recent Reddit testing that blocked logged-out visits to Reddit’s mobile website to push people to its mobile app. 
Making Old Reddit users log in could impact Reddit scraping but also will address Reddit’s interest in connecting as much traffic as possible to specific users—a strategy that is common among companies like Reddit that rely on advertising for revenue. 
Old.reddit.com might not exist “forever” 
Perhaps more alarming for old-school Redditors is that boat-botany’s post left the door open for Reddit retiring old.reddit.com. 
In a follow-up comment, boat-botany wrote that Old Reddit is not shutting down “right now,” adding: 
> We can’t promise it will be around forever, but [Reddit CEO Steve Huffman] himself has said we’ll keep supporting it while folks are still using it. 
That said, it doesn’t have the same modern security tech stack reddit.com has, so we need to tighten security on old reddit to keep it viable. 
In May 2025, Huffman addressed the longevity of Old Reddit in a post: “We’ll figure out how to work around it and keep it online as long as people are using it.” 
The new login requirement will likely decrease use of old.reddit.com, though we don’t know how much. 
While many old.reddit.com users may visit the site while logged in, the forcefulness of the login requirement could deter longtime users. 
“All part of the force-feeding of non-self-curated content to users. 
It’s really sad to see. 
[If] Old Reddit is phased out, I will no longer be able to make viewing my [subscribed-to subreddits] the default option for  using Reddit. 
It’s quite sad,” Reddit user ClarkFable posted in response to today’s announcement. 
Advance Publications, which owns Ars Technica parent Condé Nast, is the largest shareholder in Reddit. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.5%Scharon Harding: 3.6%Ars Technica: 2.8%Confirmation Bias13.5%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.7%Ars Technica: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Scharon Harding: 2.9%Ars Technica: 2.4%Availability Heuristic4.4%This article: 1.5%Scharon Harding: 1.0%Ars Technica: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic1.5%This article: 2.2%Scharon Harding: 0.5%Ars Technica: 0.6%Hindsight Bias2.2%This article: 7.7%Scharon Harding: 2.6%Ars Technica: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias7.7%This article: 8.4%Scharon Harding: 4.3%Ars Technica: 3.4%Framing Effect8.4%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 2.0%Ars Technica: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 1.7%Ars Technica: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.3%Ars Technica: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Scharon Harding: 2.6%Ars Technica: 4.2%Optimism Bias4.7%This article: 13.5%Scharon Harding: 2.0%Ars Technica: 1.7%Pessimism Bias13.5%This article: 6.6%Scharon Harding: 4.7%Ars Technica: 6.2%Negativity Bias6.6%This article: 5.8%Scharon Harding: 4.0%Ars Technica: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias5.8%This article: 2.2%Scharon Harding: 2.0%Ars Technica: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error2.2%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.4%Ars Technica: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 1.4%Ars Technica: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%Scharon Harding: 0.8%Ars Technica: 1.0%Recency Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.2%Ars Technica: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.1%Ars Technica: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.2%Ars Technica: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.6%Scharon Harding: 4.8%Ars Technica: 4.1%Appeal to Authority8.6%This article: 5.2%Scharon Harding: 1.0%Ars Technica: 1.1%False Dilemma5.2%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.7%Ars Technica: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.2%Ars Technica: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.5%Scharon Harding: 4.9%Ars Technica: 3.8%Hasty Generalization10.5%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.2%Ars Technica: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 1.1%Ars Technica: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.6%Scharon Harding: 2.3%Ars Technica: 2.7%Appeal to Emotion6.6%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.5%Ars Technica: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.5%Scharon Harding: 2.5%Ars Technica: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.5%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.1%Ars Technica: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.2%Scharon Harding: 1.7%Ars Technica: 0.5%Burden of Proof3.2%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.9%Ars Technica: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 3.8%Ars Technica: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.1%Scharon Harding: 3.1%Ars Technica: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.1%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.3%Ars Technica: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.1%Ars Technica: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 5.8%Scharon Harding: 0.4%Ars Technica: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy5.8%This article: 7.3%Scharon Harding: 0.9%Ars Technica: 1.5%Unattributed Quote7.3%This article: 4.1%Scharon Harding: 1.1%Ars Technica: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection4.1%This article: 8.6%Scharon Harding: 2.3%Ars Technica: 4.5%Biased Writer Voice8.6%This article: 4.5%Scharon Harding: 0.6%Ars Technica: 1.0%Indoctrination4.5%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scharon Harding: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Scharon Harding: 4.4%Ars Technica: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.2%

687 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers58%attributed speech287writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageboat-botany • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageboat-botany • 18 words • 100.0% coverageboat-botany • 11 words • 0.0% coverageboat-botany • 31 words • 100.0% coverageboat-botany • 35 words • 0.0% coverageboat-botany • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageNestramutat • 12 words • 0.0% coverageNestramutat • 10 words • 0.0% coverageNestramutat • 10 words • 0.0% coverageNestramutat • 15 words • 0.0% coverageNestramutat • 22 words • 0.0% coverageNestramutat • 19 words • 0.0% coverageNestramutat • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageboat-botany • 27 words • 0.0% coverageboat-botany • 26 words • 0.0% coverageSteve Huffman • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageClarkFable • 10 words • 100.0% coverageClarkFable • 5 words • 0.0% coverageClarkFable • 25 words • 100.0% coverageClarkFable • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Steve Huffman

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words8.0% of attributed speech66% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.9 ptsWriter: 13.9%Steve Huffman: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%Steve Huffman: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.2 ptsWriter: 5.2%Steve Huffman: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.