Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/technology/ellen-pao-reddit-chief-executive-resignation.html?_r=1
860 comments
As an occasional user of reddit, this whole ordeal has confirmed the reason why I prefer not to hang out in its forums. I have no idea whether Ellen was a capable CEO, but the vitriol which I kept seeing peripherally (through other news articles and here on HN) was absolutely appalling.
I'd rather have appalling speech than censored speech. The idea is to not confuse supporting a person's free speech with endorsing his views.
Also, reddit is a private company and so is not obliged to provide a platform for anyone's free speech, that also is a facet of freedom.
Also, reddit is a private company and so is not obliged to provide a platform for anyone's free speech, that also is a facet of freedom.
At last, a voice of reason in hundreds of pointless comments.
Free speech is a principle and people should be free to say whatever they want no matter how disgusting or distasteful to the majority or mainstream. This is the ideal of a free society and people who can't make the distinction between supporting the principle and yet rejecting the advocates of idiocy are implicitly advocating some form of government censorship.
Free speech is a principle and people should be free to say whatever they want no matter how disgusting or distasteful to the majority or mainstream. This is the ideal of a free society and people who can't make the distinction between supporting the principle and yet rejecting the advocates of idiocy are implicitly advocating some form of government censorship.
What about duty of thinking ?
I'm often weirded by the freedom of speech argument in non critical contexts. These persons life aren't at risk because they can't express opinions, isn't that what is meant by FoS ? not just a free card to be able to let yourself loose in public.
I have no solution, but far too often FoS ends up a noisy non-discussions.
ps: I'll add that I was somehow afraid to express my views on Freedom of Speech. Funny.
I'm often weirded by the freedom of speech argument in non critical contexts. These persons life aren't at risk because they can't express opinions, isn't that what is meant by FoS ? not just a free card to be able to let yourself loose in public.
I have no solution, but far too often FoS ends up a noisy non-discussions.
ps: I'll add that I was somehow afraid to express my views on Freedom of Speech. Funny.
>These persons life aren't at risk because they can't express opinions, isn't that what is meant by FoS ?
No
No
This thread is very interesting and I deeply appreciate the comments people are making, including FoS, fear to comment on FoS, etc.
I personally respect freedom of speech, except hate. For example, HN strongly discourages attacking another member personally (eg. calling someone else idiot). I consider this a reasonable limit on freedom of speech, but concepts and opinions should be fully open for discussion (eg. pro/anti evolution etc). If the discussions are respectful, then anything should be allowed.
I believe Political Correctness has done more harm than it does good. It has created an unhealthy focus on skin colour, reproductive organs, etc to the point of lunacy. Many people struggle to look past superficial features and seem to lost the ability to make reasoned judgements. Any criticism of a woman gets you labelled a misogynist, regardless of how incapable she is. This continues to undermine the credibility of women that are truly capable in their own right. I'm currently managing a team of women. They all got there on their own merit. I would not hire a woman for the sake of political correctness or because I was bullied by a feminist journalist (as is quite common these days). The women in my team were not selected based on their gender - they were selected based on their talents and attitudes. They were available and capable.
This whole Ellen Pao incident made me think about the validity of comments on sexism and racism that are floating around the net. Compare the attitudes towards the criticisms of Steve Ballmer vs Ellen Pao. One of these individuals contributed to the significant growth of Microsoft, the other didn't manage to achieve much that stands out. Both developed a bad reputation as leaders. Yet, one of these people is being defended and the other is not. The major difference (other than Ballmer's financial track record for Microsoft) is their genders. Political Correctness has driven the need to blindly defend women, no matter how incompetent they may be. The hope is that this behaviour will help "women's rights". I view it as doing the exact opposite ... "jobs for the girls".
It saddens me that we seem to be more sexist, less tolerant and more willing to defend incompetence an an attempt to promote rights for selected members of society.
On a side note, I dislike the term "women's rights". Is it so hard to represent "people's rights"? I believe one of these reflects a destructive, prejudiced mindset and creates a bad attitude of entitlement and encourages sexism. If society said we'd defend the rights of everyone equally based on merit, the world would be a much better place.
I personally respect freedom of speech, except hate. For example, HN strongly discourages attacking another member personally (eg. calling someone else idiot). I consider this a reasonable limit on freedom of speech, but concepts and opinions should be fully open for discussion (eg. pro/anti evolution etc). If the discussions are respectful, then anything should be allowed.
I believe Political Correctness has done more harm than it does good. It has created an unhealthy focus on skin colour, reproductive organs, etc to the point of lunacy. Many people struggle to look past superficial features and seem to lost the ability to make reasoned judgements. Any criticism of a woman gets you labelled a misogynist, regardless of how incapable she is. This continues to undermine the credibility of women that are truly capable in their own right. I'm currently managing a team of women. They all got there on their own merit. I would not hire a woman for the sake of political correctness or because I was bullied by a feminist journalist (as is quite common these days). The women in my team were not selected based on their gender - they were selected based on their talents and attitudes. They were available and capable.
This whole Ellen Pao incident made me think about the validity of comments on sexism and racism that are floating around the net. Compare the attitudes towards the criticisms of Steve Ballmer vs Ellen Pao. One of these individuals contributed to the significant growth of Microsoft, the other didn't manage to achieve much that stands out. Both developed a bad reputation as leaders. Yet, one of these people is being defended and the other is not. The major difference (other than Ballmer's financial track record for Microsoft) is their genders. Political Correctness has driven the need to blindly defend women, no matter how incompetent they may be. The hope is that this behaviour will help "women's rights". I view it as doing the exact opposite ... "jobs for the girls".
It saddens me that we seem to be more sexist, less tolerant and more willing to defend incompetence an an attempt to promote rights for selected members of society.
On a side note, I dislike the term "women's rights". Is it so hard to represent "people's rights"? I believe one of these reflects a destructive, prejudiced mindset and creates a bad attitude of entitlement and encourages sexism. If society said we'd defend the rights of everyone equally based on merit, the world would be a much better place.
> I personally respect freedom of speech, except hate.
The problem is that as soon as you draw such a line, you need to appoint a censor to determine what qualifies as "hate". As Christopher Hitchens asked: "To whom would you want to delegate the task to decide for you what you could read? To relieve you of the responsibility of hearing what you might have to hear?"
Typically this job falls to the public prosecutors. Who will make mistakes, misapply and pervert the laws. Sometimes with good intentions, sometimes with malice.
It is not just an abstract argument, it has very real consequences. Here in Finland we had a case [1] where an MP (now MEP) was convicted of hate speech for making a point about freedom of speech by asking a question along the lines of: 'Why is it ok to write that Finns might be culturally and genetically predisposed to get drunk and kill people, but not ok to write that Somalis might be culturally and genetically predisposed to rob people and live on welfare?'
These types of laws have very real chilling effects on public discourse. People are unwilling to engage in certain topics, which should be discussed, due to the fear of being prosecuted. In democracies trying to suppress or censor an idea or argument will just end up elevating them. In this case, the party to which the convicted MP belongs ended up becoming the second largest party and are now in the government. They no longer have to argue their case, they can simply implement it (and their immigration program was written by the MP in question).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussi_Halla-aho#Criminal_charg...
The problem is that as soon as you draw such a line, you need to appoint a censor to determine what qualifies as "hate". As Christopher Hitchens asked: "To whom would you want to delegate the task to decide for you what you could read? To relieve you of the responsibility of hearing what you might have to hear?"
Typically this job falls to the public prosecutors. Who will make mistakes, misapply and pervert the laws. Sometimes with good intentions, sometimes with malice.
It is not just an abstract argument, it has very real consequences. Here in Finland we had a case [1] where an MP (now MEP) was convicted of hate speech for making a point about freedom of speech by asking a question along the lines of: 'Why is it ok to write that Finns might be culturally and genetically predisposed to get drunk and kill people, but not ok to write that Somalis might be culturally and genetically predisposed to rob people and live on welfare?'
These types of laws have very real chilling effects on public discourse. People are unwilling to engage in certain topics, which should be discussed, due to the fear of being prosecuted. In democracies trying to suppress or censor an idea or argument will just end up elevating them. In this case, the party to which the convicted MP belongs ended up becoming the second largest party and are now in the government. They no longer have to argue their case, they can simply implement it (and their immigration program was written by the MP in question).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussi_Halla-aho#Criminal_charg...
Counterpoint: Censorship is awesome. It creates and shapes places that are just great and pleasant all around. Being an excellent censor is a great ability and there are sadly way too few out there who can give a clear voice (not in the sense of being one voice, necessarily, though that can also be great!) to something and be really excellently opinionated about their censorship.
I want more great censorship, not less. If it’s done by people and organisations, at least. Because that’s what we are talking about here, right? Reddit, not governments?
Censors are just editors and that job is not some inscrutable thing. It can be done and it can be done excellently.
I mean, to me this only gets tricky when we are talking about basic infrastructure, i.e. should a paper mill be allowed to refuse to sell their paper to Neo Nazis because of ideological reasons? Should a web hoster be allowed to refuse to sell to Neo Nazis?
But Reddit? That’s easy and I don’t really get what the fuss is about. Nothing would be lost at all if the admins were much, much, much more ban happy and much more pro-censorship. They should be, 100%.
I want more great censorship, not less. If it’s done by people and organisations, at least. Because that’s what we are talking about here, right? Reddit, not governments?
Censors are just editors and that job is not some inscrutable thing. It can be done and it can be done excellently.
I mean, to me this only gets tricky when we are talking about basic infrastructure, i.e. should a paper mill be allowed to refuse to sell their paper to Neo Nazis because of ideological reasons? Should a web hoster be allowed to refuse to sell to Neo Nazis?
But Reddit? That’s easy and I don’t really get what the fuss is about. Nothing would be lost at all if the admins were much, much, much more ban happy and much more pro-censorship. They should be, 100%.
Perhaps I'm missing something. How would you know if someone is an excellent censor (I.e. They only censor "bad" speech, and not "good" speech) if then intent is to shield you from the "bad" speech. Wouldn't you then not know what they censored?
Specifically, it seems to me that if you're shielded from seeing that they censored, then they could also be censoring "good" speech too. So the only way it seems you could ensure they weren't do this poorly or deliberately would be to allow everyone access to what they've censored. Which inversely seems to defeat the purpose of having a good censor. Now essentially nothing in censored.
Again, perhaps I'm missing something but if I'm not then I don't understand how you resolve this conundrum.
Edit: Unless you're referring to ex post facto censorship, where everyone sees the "bad" speech, and the speaker is banned for violating "community standards" To pre-emptively ban future speech. But this too still allows "bad" speech, and I suppose you also have the problem of deleting the bad speech. If it's gone, then what substantiates the ban/censorship? Because again, what if the action was either done in error, or maliciously to ban "good" but unpopular speech/speakers how would you know?
Specifically, it seems to me that if you're shielded from seeing that they censored, then they could also be censoring "good" speech too. So the only way it seems you could ensure they weren't do this poorly or deliberately would be to allow everyone access to what they've censored. Which inversely seems to defeat the purpose of having a good censor. Now essentially nothing in censored.
Again, perhaps I'm missing something but if I'm not then I don't understand how you resolve this conundrum.
Edit: Unless you're referring to ex post facto censorship, where everyone sees the "bad" speech, and the speaker is banned for violating "community standards" To pre-emptively ban future speech. But this too still allows "bad" speech, and I suppose you also have the problem of deleting the bad speech. If it's gone, then what substantiates the ban/censorship? Because again, what if the action was either done in error, or maliciously to ban "good" but unpopular speech/speakers how would you know?
I don’t. I just accept that sometimes I just cannot know the absolute truth and that’s that.
But I do have the ability to trust people and I know when I enjoy something.
So, this all might sound very abstract, but I do know that I like the censors (they call themselves editors) working for certain newspapers I like. I trust them to make good decisions, partly just because I don’t have time to make those decisions myself.
And that’s obviously not perfect – but this whole nerd dream of provable correctness and absolute, guaranteed access to the truth all the time … it’s all unachievable bullshit anyway. Sometime you just don’t know. Sometimes you just have to live with that. I live with it and I like it.
But I do have the ability to trust people and I know when I enjoy something.
So, this all might sound very abstract, but I do know that I like the censors (they call themselves editors) working for certain newspapers I like. I trust them to make good decisions, partly just because I don’t have time to make those decisions myself.
And that’s obviously not perfect – but this whole nerd dream of provable correctness and absolute, guaranteed access to the truth all the time … it’s all unachievable bullshit anyway. Sometime you just don’t know. Sometimes you just have to live with that. I live with it and I like it.
> Sometime you just don’t know. Sometimes you just have to live with that. I live with it and I like it.
Honestly, this comes across as "He loved Big Brother"-level creepy.
Honestly, this comes across as "He loved Big Brother"-level creepy.
> Counterpoint: Censorship is awesome.
Well it's crucial that the censors are people who like you. If they didn't like you, you probably wouldn't be such a fan of censorship. That is to say, the only reason you're in favour of censorship on reddit is that you're reasonably that the censors will be people like you, which really is no more than sophisticated tribalism.
Well it's crucial that the censors are people who like you. If they didn't like you, you probably wouldn't be such a fan of censorship. That is to say, the only reason you're in favour of censorship on reddit is that you're reasonably that the censors will be people like you, which really is no more than sophisticated tribalism.
Hm … well I don’t like the censors at (insert certain newspaper I dislike here). But I don’t argue that they shouldn’t censor (edit their newspaper), I argue that they shouldn’t lie and write so much bullshit.
If I didn’t like the censors at Reddit I would do the same thing. I think that’s normal and healthy.
If I didn’t like the censors at Reddit I would do the same thing. I think that’s normal and healthy.
It's interesting. Instead of censorships I'm fond of the idea (though experiment so far) of shaping the place with costs and plateaus. Make sensitive things possible but with a bit of effort, so only people needing and meaning it will go the distance. The other will `naturally` fall back to their comfort zone.
reddit does that actually, until you're a well known user, you cannot submit more than a few per minute, after that delays kick in, if it really was something you wanted to share, you'll come back. No censor involved.
That's just an idea, but you get the point.
reddit does that actually, until you're a well known user, you cannot submit more than a few per minute, after that delays kick in, if it really was something you wanted to share, you'll come back. No censor involved.
That's just an idea, but you get the point.
> The problem is that as soon as you draw such a line
At some point, hate speech most definitely infringes upon the reader's rights. The canonical example is yelling "FIRE! FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater and causing a stampede; your right to free speech doesn't trump everybody else's right to be safe.
I'd very strongly suggest you read the circumstances of * Schenck v. United States. While I also find the issue of fraudulently harmful speech a reasonable bar, the case itself concerned something rather different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
[A] United States Supreme Court decision concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in a famous opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed leaflets to draft-age men, urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
[A] United States Supreme Court decision concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in a famous opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed leaflets to draft-age men, urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense.
>On a side note, I dislike the term "women's rights". Is it so hard to represent "people's rights"?
I want to pull this quote out and address it directly, because it's a valid concern with a real answer. The reason we don't represent "people's rights" is because all people do not need their rights defended. To use an analogy, think of our system for measuring the level of endangered for animals, from "Critically Endangered" to "Least Concern." Is it sensible to say, 'Well, aren't all species important to the ecosystem? Why do we seek to protect Garrulax courtoisi but not Megascops watsonii?' This is because the former is nearly extinct, while the latter is ubiquitous. The cause of "social justice" -- the oft-derided 'warriors' of anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, etc -- is to correct years of disadvantage. It's not accurate to call, say, attempts to further women in technology as 'sexist'. In fact, that's co-opting the term to obfuscate the original issue.
Overall, your heart is in the right place -- it does seem like our attempts to further minorities comes off as patronizing (like affirmative action). But, in the end, the good that is done outweighs the bad so long as we adequately train the individuals we put forward through these initiatives such that no one believes they only 'got it because of their gender' (which to me is no different than 'got here through someone she knows' -- this is how most business seems to be done in the world!)
I want to pull this quote out and address it directly, because it's a valid concern with a real answer. The reason we don't represent "people's rights" is because all people do not need their rights defended. To use an analogy, think of our system for measuring the level of endangered for animals, from "Critically Endangered" to "Least Concern." Is it sensible to say, 'Well, aren't all species important to the ecosystem? Why do we seek to protect Garrulax courtoisi but not Megascops watsonii?' This is because the former is nearly extinct, while the latter is ubiquitous. The cause of "social justice" -- the oft-derided 'warriors' of anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, etc -- is to correct years of disadvantage. It's not accurate to call, say, attempts to further women in technology as 'sexist'. In fact, that's co-opting the term to obfuscate the original issue.
Overall, your heart is in the right place -- it does seem like our attempts to further minorities comes off as patronizing (like affirmative action). But, in the end, the good that is done outweighs the bad so long as we adequately train the individuals we put forward through these initiatives such that no one believes they only 'got it because of their gender' (which to me is no different than 'got here through someone she knows' -- this is how most business seems to be done in the world!)
Thoughtful comments.
I have thought much on these as common person, neither in an academic setting nor who has to deal with these issue frequently.
Lot of time I would argue with myself why can't we have everybody have equal rights ? Why we need to specially fight for rights of women and be feminists or to project the issue to broader sense, where we talk or act about any group. Personally I believe that while the ideal case as it should be is equal rights for everybody, the problem is the inequality created by negative discrimination over the ages. It is more like we are trying to correct the wrong doing over the ages by believing that a positive discrimination for the groups would offset the historical prejudice.
These are personal thoughts. Please feel free to correct.
I have thought much on these as common person, neither in an academic setting nor who has to deal with these issue frequently.
Lot of time I would argue with myself why can't we have everybody have equal rights ? Why we need to specially fight for rights of women and be feminists or to project the issue to broader sense, where we talk or act about any group. Personally I believe that while the ideal case as it should be is equal rights for everybody, the problem is the inequality created by negative discrimination over the ages. It is more like we are trying to correct the wrong doing over the ages by believing that a positive discrimination for the groups would offset the historical prejudice.
These are personal thoughts. Please feel free to correct.
For some reason there is still lots of inequality in education, work and culture so some sort of change is still needed. And I really don't think you get seriously labeled a bigot just for any criticism of a minority member.
> Both developed a bad reputation as leaders. Yet, one of these people is being defended and the other is not.
You mean Ballmer?
We know nothing specific and substantial about internal Reddit politics, so the cause for seeing all this hateful scapegoating can only be some kind of mass stupidity.
> Both developed a bad reputation as leaders. Yet, one of these people is being defended and the other is not.
You mean Ballmer?
We know nothing specific and substantial about internal Reddit politics, so the cause for seeing all this hateful scapegoating can only be some kind of mass stupidity.
>I personally respect freedom of speech, except hate.
How far are you willing to take that? You could potentially prohibit satire.
How far are you willing to take that? You could potentially prohibit satire.
>> I personally respect freedom of speech, except hate.
I'm sorry. You don't respect freedom of speech then. Drawing an arbitrary line on what you (or anyone else) considers acceptable isn't free speech.
Put it this way: Things that were unacceptable in the 1950s are completely banal and uninteresting now. Things that were considered in poor taste in the past are horribly offensive now (look at Andy Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's). Are you going to be some society guardian, constantly updating what is and isn't acceptable to say as our values shift with the times
I'm sorry. You don't respect freedom of speech then. Drawing an arbitrary line on what you (or anyone else) considers acceptable isn't free speech.
Put it this way: Things that were unacceptable in the 1950s are completely banal and uninteresting now. Things that were considered in poor taste in the past are horribly offensive now (look at Andy Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's). Are you going to be some society guardian, constantly updating what is and isn't acceptable to say as our values shift with the times
This argument is pretty easy to deflate: a defender of "absolute free speech" most certainly would not be okay with people walking up to them in the street, following them home and verbally threatening them. So, everybody has an arbitrary line.... somewhere.
> ps: I'll add that I was somehow afraid to express my views on Freedom of Speech. Funny.
Hah yeah because speaking up against these mobs can lead to getting DOXed. What an insane world we live in.
Hah yeah because speaking up against these mobs can lead to getting DOXed. What an insane world we live in.
> These persons life aren't at risk because they can't express opinions, isn't that what is meant by FoS ?
No. That's the exact opposite of free speech. Free speech is meant to protect the most disgusting, heinous, pointless, hateful, ignorant, foolish speech.
That's the whole freaking point - nobody wants to silence unoffensive opinions.
>ps: I'll add that I was somehow afraid to express my views on Freedom of Speech. Funny.
It is funny. Because it's the people who want silence others' free speech who repeat the "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" meme as justification for their horrible actions.
No. That's the exact opposite of free speech. Free speech is meant to protect the most disgusting, heinous, pointless, hateful, ignorant, foolish speech.
That's the whole freaking point - nobody wants to silence unoffensive opinions.
>ps: I'll add that I was somehow afraid to express my views on Freedom of Speech. Funny.
It is funny. Because it's the people who want silence others' free speech who repeat the "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" meme as justification for their horrible actions.
> Free speech is meant to protect the most disgusting, heinous, pointless, hateful, ignorant, foolish speech.
No it's not. It's meant to protect speech which the politically powerful find objectionable. It's not about protecting abuse, but protecting ideas. Rebellious and revolutionary ideas, for example.
This is all a canard anyway - Reddit is not the (US) government. They get to set the rules for communication in their playground. If you don't let them do that, then you are infringing on their freedom of expression. Reddit can only say 'no' on their own systems; they don't stop you spreading whatever disgusting, heinous, pointless, hateful, ignorant, or foolish speech in other forums.
If you want free speech the way you describe it, then you need to go to an unmoderated forum. Incidentally, on the front page of HN at the moment is a request for help in removing child porn from a web service, because the owner doesn't have enough resources to moderate it. If you ever wanted a clear example of where free speech is not meant to protect disgusting material, that's got to be it
No it's not. It's meant to protect speech which the politically powerful find objectionable. It's not about protecting abuse, but protecting ideas. Rebellious and revolutionary ideas, for example.
This is all a canard anyway - Reddit is not the (US) government. They get to set the rules for communication in their playground. If you don't let them do that, then you are infringing on their freedom of expression. Reddit can only say 'no' on their own systems; they don't stop you spreading whatever disgusting, heinous, pointless, hateful, ignorant, or foolish speech in other forums.
If you want free speech the way you describe it, then you need to go to an unmoderated forum. Incidentally, on the front page of HN at the moment is a request for help in removing child porn from a web service, because the owner doesn't have enough resources to moderate it. If you ever wanted a clear example of where free speech is not meant to protect disgusting material, that's got to be it
I wished the ideal of free speech would include the ideal of being open to discussion (perhaps even the scientific method). I think many movements fail in that regard, for example it was pretty much impossible to have reasonable discussions with FPH subscribers. You were immediately downvoted when you tried to argue against it. If people are completely ignorant towards alternative, consistent points of view, they don't deserve to be listened to.
Forcing people to listen, act in certain ways or to follow specific practices is basically the opposite of freedom.
Saying that people should be open to your arguments privileges those ideas you yourself hold. How do you tell which arguments get such treatment?
Saying that people should be open to your arguments privileges those ideas you yourself hold. How do you tell which arguments get such treatment?
It wouldn't be the opposite of freedom (that would be suppression), but definitely a limit to the freedom we currently have in certain regards. However, we already have formal and informal rules that restrict the actions of people and forces them to follow specific practices, so it wouldn't be entirely new. In fact it would probably improve the situations at both extremes: on the one hand some taboos would be revoked (as that's also a way to avoid discussion), and you could exclude crazy and confused people who don't partake in any actual discourse.
I didn't say at all people should be open to my particular arguments, but to arguments in general.
I didn't say at all people should be open to my particular arguments, but to arguments in general.
> I didn't say at all people should be open to my particular arguments, but to arguments in general.
If it's arguments in general,
* you can't hang up on salesmen,
* you can't kick 911 conspirators off your unrelated forum,
* you can't remove most trolls,
* you can't ban homeopathy threads from /r/science,
* etc.
In general, you lose the ability to moderate conversations in spaces you own, or decide what you spend your time doing. This is, to be honest, a pretty extreme idea if taken literally.
Or you could deem salesmen, 911 conspirators, trolls and homeopathy proponents as "crazy and confused", but who decides that? How is that any more unwanted than posting critical meta commentary to /r/fatpeoplehate?
If it's arguments in general,
* you can't hang up on salesmen,
* you can't kick 911 conspirators off your unrelated forum,
* you can't remove most trolls,
* you can't ban homeopathy threads from /r/science,
* etc.
In general, you lose the ability to moderate conversations in spaces you own, or decide what you spend your time doing. This is, to be honest, a pretty extreme idea if taken literally.
Or you could deem salesmen, 911 conspirators, trolls and homeopathy proponents as "crazy and confused", but who decides that? How is that any more unwanted than posting critical meta commentary to /r/fatpeoplehate?
You are confusing an implication for an equivalence. I've said that those who are not open to arguments should not have a voice. From that it doesn't follow that those who argue should always be listened to.
I imagine a concrete implementation of this idea as a meme that people themselves would recognize this as a good rule and that they would consider it as a decision aid whether or not to participate in a certain group.
I imagine a concrete implementation of this idea as a meme that people themselves would recognize this as a good rule and that they would consider it as a decision aid whether or not to participate in a certain group.
It's really not uncommon for hateful children to have thin skin.
>It's meant to protect speech which the politically powerful find objectionable. It's not about protecting abuse, but protecting ideas.
The loophole, then, is to define ideas the politically powerful find objectionable as abuse.
The loophole, then, is to define ideas the politically powerful find objectionable as abuse.
[deleted]
I think the point is that protecting abuse is a necessary but unwanted side-effect, not that it shouldn't be protected. This matters because it helps distinguish when such freedoms need to be applied (eg. in government, not my back yard) and how it should be applied.
It's interesting to me how many reddit free speech defenders say stuff like "Free speech is meant to protect the most disgusting, heinous, pointless, hateful, ignorant, foolish speech."
While I agree that pointless, hateful etc. speech deserves protection one word I almost never see in the reddit free speech wars is *dissent. As in "free speech is meant to protect speech that opposes or challenges orthodox opinion and conventional wisdom."
It's almost like the most vocal part of reddit gets off on being offensive for its own sake and is more concerned about the right to call fat people names rather than defending free speech generally. It does seems like they are flying the free speech flag purely out of narrow self-interest.
How many of them actually give a crap about free speech outside of their "community"? How many of them regularly downvote opinions they don't agree with, I wonder?
While I agree that pointless, hateful etc. speech deserves protection one word I almost never see in the reddit free speech wars is *dissent. As in "free speech is meant to protect speech that opposes or challenges orthodox opinion and conventional wisdom."
It's almost like the most vocal part of reddit gets off on being offensive for its own sake and is more concerned about the right to call fat people names rather than defending free speech generally. It does seems like they are flying the free speech flag purely out of narrow self-interest.
How many of them actually give a crap about free speech outside of their "community"? How many of them regularly downvote opinions they don't agree with, I wonder?
> It is funny. Because it's the people who want silence others' free speech who repeat the "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" meme as justification for their horrible actions.
Ugh. "horrible actions" as a description for calling people out who threaten, belittle, insult and harass other people and claim that is "protected speech".
By the way, even in a context, where the term "freedom of speech" is really adequate (so, when talking laws and government actions, for example), freedom stops where you infringe the rights of others. That's the whole point of states: To balance the natural freedoms of one person with the rights of other people, thus providing stability. Which is why you can't steal, for example. That's a freedom that had to be balanced against the rights of other people.
Ugh. "horrible actions" as a description for calling people out who threaten, belittle, insult and harass other people and claim that is "protected speech".
By the way, even in a context, where the term "freedom of speech" is really adequate (so, when talking laws and government actions, for example), freedom stops where you infringe the rights of others. That's the whole point of states: To balance the natural freedoms of one person with the rights of other people, thus providing stability. Which is why you can't steal, for example. That's a freedom that had to be balanced against the rights of other people.
Freedom of speech != freedom to force anyone to listen to you.
As long as you are free to create your own community where you can say whatever you want, there is no need for any other community to listen to you.
As long as you are free to create your own community where you can say whatever you want, there is no need for any other community to listen to you.
Nor was anyone forced to listen. I find the default subs pretty low quality, so I stopped subscribing to them years ago. So the only things I read about were the books, video games and programming languages I like. If you had a different experience, then I sympathise with you, but don't go reading a thread filled with utter crap and then claim that someone forced you to listen.
As I've said in another subthread, Reddit is not a single community, but rather numerous communities. All users are free to listen to what they like, and to not listen (or even block) what they don't like. It's rather like Usenet, with a Reddit account being equivalent to a news server account.
As I understand it, the founding fathers cast it more as "freedom to listen" rather than freedom of speech.
And it's certainly understandable that Reddit has no wish to be associated with certain speech, but that comes with troubling implications as well. For example, do they not then appear to support whatever they do not ban if we know that whatever sufficiently offends them gets the ban hammer?
For another example, take Google removing Confederate flags. I personally hate that damned flag and would be perfectly happy to join others in burning one to express my feelings about it, but I'm loathe to go around removing them. Please understand that I'm perfectly happy if a few get taken down where they appear that some governmental branch was endorsing it.
But at the same time, that's not quite the same as when Google goes about removing them. Sure, they are free to do as they wish, I have to wonder why Google doesn't do the same for Nazi symbols? Surely they don't support Nazis, but it's hard to make a case for not giving the Nazis the same treatment. They're at least as evil, right? So what explanations are left to us for the disparity? That Nazis don't offend googlers as much? That doesn't seem like a likely reason, but just what's left?
And in the end, where does that leave us? The problem is, I don't think that train of thought has an end, and that's what makes me uneasy. After we remove everything offensive, what's left? It's not like we'll have things that don't offend anybody, so at some point it becomes a matter of choosing which people are okay to offend and which people are not okay to offend.
In the end, I just want to get along with everyone. I don't like the thought of living in a society where everything becomes a matter of whether you are one of Us or one of Them and that's where we appear to be heading.
And it's certainly understandable that Reddit has no wish to be associated with certain speech, but that comes with troubling implications as well. For example, do they not then appear to support whatever they do not ban if we know that whatever sufficiently offends them gets the ban hammer?
For another example, take Google removing Confederate flags. I personally hate that damned flag and would be perfectly happy to join others in burning one to express my feelings about it, but I'm loathe to go around removing them. Please understand that I'm perfectly happy if a few get taken down where they appear that some governmental branch was endorsing it.
But at the same time, that's not quite the same as when Google goes about removing them. Sure, they are free to do as they wish, I have to wonder why Google doesn't do the same for Nazi symbols? Surely they don't support Nazis, but it's hard to make a case for not giving the Nazis the same treatment. They're at least as evil, right? So what explanations are left to us for the disparity? That Nazis don't offend googlers as much? That doesn't seem like a likely reason, but just what's left?
And in the end, where does that leave us? The problem is, I don't think that train of thought has an end, and that's what makes me uneasy. After we remove everything offensive, what's left? It's not like we'll have things that don't offend anybody, so at some point it becomes a matter of choosing which people are okay to offend and which people are not okay to offend.
In the end, I just want to get along with everyone. I don't like the thought of living in a society where everything becomes a matter of whether you are one of Us or one of Them and that's where we appear to be heading.
Didn't Google just remove the confederate flag from Shopping Express and ads, not from search results?
They don't sell Nazi flags in their store or (afaik) let people advertise using them, so this doesn't seem as inconsistent to me as you make it sound.
They don't sell Nazi flags in their store or (afaik) let people advertise using them, so this doesn't seem as inconsistent to me as you make it sound.
Yes, and Google is happy to sell you all manner of Nazi items:
https://www.google.com/search?q=nazi+swastica&ie=utf-8&oe=ut...
Not to mention copies of the Mein Kampf, etc.
Thankfully, the various non-Nazi uses of the swastika appear to be the most popular, but you can find plenty of Nazi items. I dislike the meaning of both symbols, so I have a hard time imagining any logic where it's okay to sell one of them but not the other.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nazi+swastica&ie=utf-8&oe=ut...
Not to mention copies of the Mein Kampf, etc.
Thankfully, the various non-Nazi uses of the swastika appear to be the most popular, but you can find plenty of Nazi items. I dislike the meaning of both symbols, so I have a hard time imagining any logic where it's okay to sell one of them but not the other.
Oh, then you're right, this is definitely less okay. I was under the impression that they just stopped delivering them from Walmart (or wherever) via Shopping Express, rather than special-casing the search results.
I guess the argument one could make is that the confederate flag is more dangerous and relevant today, but I don't really buy that.
Occam's razor suggests this is just an easy PR grab. They get a few headlines in mainstream tech press for free, and very minor backlash from "free speech nutjubs" as the only downside.
I guess the argument one could make is that the confederate flag is more dangerous and relevant today, but I don't really buy that.
Occam's razor suggests this is just an easy PR grab. They get a few headlines in mainstream tech press for free, and very minor backlash from "free speech nutjubs" as the only downside.
9front, a fork of plan9, includes Mein Kampf in the distribution as a kind of trolling canary.
We only burn the bad books, right?
We only burn the bad books, right?
They probably also sell the soviet flag, copies of Das Capital etc. Equally horrible but for the other side.
Also side note: reading Mein Kampf doesn't make you a nazi, indeed if more people had read it back in the day somebody might have stooped that little corporal.
Also side note: reading Mein Kampf doesn't make you a nazi, indeed if more people had read it back in the day somebody might have stooped that little corporal.
Reddit is legally allowed to censor all they want. Some people, especially people younger than me, like a version of the world where somebody smoothes off the rough edges and hides unsightly things. I think it feels too much like Disneyland.
Reddit spent years building a freewheeling culture. Pao decided to impose standards on that, and her guiding principles weren't well articulated. In the end, it was a really bad copy of Disneyland, and the fact that the effort failed was no surprise.
I'm not sure the company really knows what happened, given that they think they've given their users what they asked for, but they're also telling their users that they're spoiled kids.
Reddit spent years building a freewheeling culture. Pao decided to impose standards on that, and her guiding principles weren't well articulated. In the end, it was a really bad copy of Disneyland, and the fact that the effort failed was no surprise.
I'm not sure the company really knows what happened, given that they think they've given their users what they asked for, but they're also telling their users that they're spoiled kids.
> Pao decided to impose standards on that, and her guiding principles weren't well articulated.
I think you nailed it there. I'm not a Reddit user, but from what I have read there never seemed to be clear set of guidelines that were evenly enforced by the Reddit staff.
I think you nailed it there. I'm not a Reddit user, but from what I have read there never seemed to be clear set of guidelines that were evenly enforced by the Reddit staff.
If your version of free speech means allowing anything to be said anywhere, I don't want it. The principle of free speech I subscribe to is allowing anyone a place such that those who want to listen, can. In essence, to prevent one party silencing a communication between two other parties. Reddit need not be that place.
That's a good definition. But even that approach will fail when those with power define the "place such that those who want to listen, can" to be so small that nobody can find it. An example is the so-called free speech zones at some colleges that are small designated spots far from earshot of the entire campus population.
> that approach will fail when those with power define the "place such that those who want to listen, can" to be so small that nobody can find it
Okay. But reddit isn't "those with power". reddit isn't making it illegal to do it elsewhere.
Okay. But reddit isn't "those with power". reddit isn't making it illegal to do it elsewhere.
Agree. I was speaking more in general rather than specifically about reddit.
>Reddit need not be that place.
Nope, but then again, being that place is what made it grow so large in the first place.
Nope, but then again, being that place is what made it grow so large in the first place.
Can you elaborate? Its not clear to me where we disagree, if at all.
Sure, but people should also be free to refuse to listen to things they find distasteful, and to refuse access to people who post things they find distasteful on platforms they operate.
>...and to refuse access to people who post things they find distasteful on platforms they operate.
I tend to agree with what I think you're saying but I wonder if you realize what a controversial opinion that can be to some people. Consider the reaction to Rand Paul's criticism of the Civil Rights Act. Should one be able to operate a restaurant/business/country club that won't serve [blacks, LGBT, Muslims, whites, hispanics, cops, etc]?
I tend to agree with what I think you're saying but I wonder if you realize what a controversial opinion that can be to some people. Consider the reaction to Rand Paul's criticism of the Civil Rights Act. Should one be able to operate a restaurant/business/country club that won't serve [blacks, LGBT, Muslims, whites, hispanics, cops, etc]?
The obvious solution to the problem that I don't see on any of these message board sites is simply to allow users to have their own personal blacklists for blocking/filtering users whose comments they don't want to see. Personal differences aside the paid troll farms boosting the noise has really gotten unbearable on the interwebs.
That was one thing Digg had that I missed when I moved to reddit. I suspect it's a pretty resource-intensive function compared to what exists today, though.
But as the comment you're replying to said:
>Reddit is a private company and so is not obliged to provide a platform for anyone's free speech, that also is a facet of freedom.
We must be careful not to confuse commercial viability with government censorship. At some point, advertisers will leave a website that continues to foster vitriol/hate speech/illegal content because they do not want their brand associated with it. This is freedom of speech in action.
>Reddit is a private company and so is not obliged to provide a platform for anyone's free speech, that also is a facet of freedom.
We must be careful not to confuse commercial viability with government censorship. At some point, advertisers will leave a website that continues to foster vitriol/hate speech/illegal content because they do not want their brand associated with it. This is freedom of speech in action.
This is very idealistic, though. A society works on give and take. Courtesy keeps the society stable. There ought to be some negative consequences for billowing hatred.
[deleted]
> I'd rather have appalling speech than censored speech
If we were talking about what's legal to publish in your own newspaper, I agree.
If we're talking about what's appropriate to force others to view by brigading with a small number of people to take over a website to use it as its own platform to harass its CEO, I disagree.
If we were talking about what's legal to publish in your own newspaper, I agree.
If we're talking about what's appropriate to force others to view by brigading with a small number of people to take over a website to use it as its own platform to harass its CEO, I disagree.
I absolutely agree with you. Free Speech is not a thing on private boards or sites on the internet. Moderation is a good thing if you want a healthy online environment and conversation.
That said, I think the moderation Pao symbolised on Reddit as a whole was a very wrong move. The Community certainly did. All the subreddits are individually moderated and the subreddits are opt-in; there's very little need for an overarching moderation of Reddit major.
Combine this with the rules for moderation being so vague everyone was asking what they actually were, and the reason given was "safety". Safety?
To me, "Safety" is a red-cloth term. It smells of the agenda used to rule the masses by fear and security, and to me Reddit is the exact opposite. But in reality, it was probably just an honest answer to Reddit's Community and investors both, that they wanted Reddit to be a safe product.
Well, nobody joined Reddit because it was "safe". It's the wild west of the interwebs, subreddits progressively darker as you find more weird stuff and you have to tell yourself "no - I don't need that" (who hasn't ventured to r/aww - darkness comes in many shades).
tl;dr Reddit is set up as a wild west with moderated towns, it is counter-productive to clamp down on everything with "safety" as the rallying cry.
That said, I think the moderation Pao symbolised on Reddit as a whole was a very wrong move. The Community certainly did. All the subreddits are individually moderated and the subreddits are opt-in; there's very little need for an overarching moderation of Reddit major.
Combine this with the rules for moderation being so vague everyone was asking what they actually were, and the reason given was "safety". Safety?
To me, "Safety" is a red-cloth term. It smells of the agenda used to rule the masses by fear and security, and to me Reddit is the exact opposite. But in reality, it was probably just an honest answer to Reddit's Community and investors both, that they wanted Reddit to be a safe product.
Well, nobody joined Reddit because it was "safe". It's the wild west of the interwebs, subreddits progressively darker as you find more weird stuff and you have to tell yourself "no - I don't need that" (who hasn't ventured to r/aww - darkness comes in many shades).
tl;dr Reddit is set up as a wild west with moderated towns, it is counter-productive to clamp down on everything with "safety" as the rallying cry.
>That said, I think the moderation Pao symbolised on Reddit as a whole was a very wrong move. The Community certainly did. All the subreddits are individually moderated and the subreddits are opt-in; there's very little need for an overarching moderation of Reddit major.
They stepped in because moderators of a banned sub was found to encourage and even directly participate in harassment of other people. And they only caved in after a. incessant complaints from the public and b. some personal threats against imgur employees who took down some images the abusers uploaded.
More info: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/39bzdf/why_wa...
They stepped in because moderators of a banned sub was found to encourage and even directly participate in harassment of other people. And they only caved in after a. incessant complaints from the public and b. some personal threats against imgur employees who took down some images the abusers uploaded.
More info: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/39bzdf/why_wa...
> the agenda used to rule the masses by fear and security
> the wild west of the interwebs
> clamp down on everything
This is, joking or not, way out of proportion to what happened, which is, a single harassment-focused group was disbanded.
This is, joking or not, way out of proportion to what happened, which is, a single harassment-focused group was disbanded.
> which is, a single harassment-focused group was disbanded.
That wasn't the only event that transpired. I'd venture to say things got really intense after Victoria was let go and sub-reddits accounting for 33% of visits were shut down in protest of how the affair was handled (poor communication, no transition planning). I think the disconnect between the mods and Reddit's leadership is what got Pao fired; not the shutting down of FPH.
That wasn't the only event that transpired. I'd venture to say things got really intense after Victoria was let go and sub-reddits accounting for 33% of visits were shut down in protest of how the affair was handled (poor communication, no transition planning). I think the disconnect between the mods and Reddit's leadership is what got Pao fired; not the shutting down of FPH.
Free speech is between you and the government. If a company that runs a forum says it bans people for abusive comments there's nothing to do with free speech. We see with Reddit that the ugliest users are the ones that are the loudest and drown out everyone else.
>Free speech is between you and the government.
No. Free speech is a principle that any party can choose to respect. Free speech has been one of the very core values of Reddit right from the beginning, in the form of the ability to create and manage a subreddit with very minimal restrictions.
Being a platform of free speech was the single biggest reason Reddit grew to be the giant community that it is today.
Then Pao comes along and repeatedly shows that she doesn't respect free speech at all. What do you expect the users to do, other than revolt?
It's easy to brush off these incidents as the doings of "the ugliest users", but remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. History books are filled with people being silenced due to their expression of uncomfortable ideas.
No. Free speech is a principle that any party can choose to respect. Free speech has been one of the very core values of Reddit right from the beginning, in the form of the ability to create and manage a subreddit with very minimal restrictions.
Being a platform of free speech was the single biggest reason Reddit grew to be the giant community that it is today.
Then Pao comes along and repeatedly shows that she doesn't respect free speech at all. What do you expect the users to do, other than revolt?
It's easy to brush off these incidents as the doings of "the ugliest users", but remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. History books are filled with people being silenced due to their expression of uncomfortable ideas.
I see this glib line often (that free speech is only about the government), but I don't think it's right. It's true that the First Amendment specifically requires the US government to respect free speech. But that doesn't mean the general principle applies only to the government.
For example, John Stuart Mill's utilitarian defense of free speech in On Liberty is equally applicable to private parties and specifically says society and individual people should be open to expression of views they find abhorrent. He specifically covers widespread social ostracism as well as government laws. According to Mill, free speech is definitely not just about freedom from government restrictions.
I doubt you understand the principles of free speech better than John Stuart Mill. Or if you understand his argument in On Liberty and disagree, please explain why.
For example, John Stuart Mill's utilitarian defense of free speech in On Liberty is equally applicable to private parties and specifically says society and individual people should be open to expression of views they find abhorrent. He specifically covers widespread social ostracism as well as government laws. According to Mill, free speech is definitely not just about freedom from government restrictions.
I doubt you understand the principles of free speech better than John Stuart Mill. Or if you understand his argument in On Liberty and disagree, please explain why.
You're correct, it's an ignorant argument, and I see it posted all over the place. I wish America had a better education system, because it drowns out the real conversations that should be happening around free speech.
You have the right to say whatever you want, you do not have the right to say it in my home. I'm curious as to whether or not these individuals understand this, or are just another level of troll trying to stir the pot.
You have the right to say whatever you want, you do not have the right to say it in my home. I'm curious as to whether or not these individuals understand this, or are just another level of troll trying to stir the pot.
> you do not have the right to say it in my home.
Furthermore, I do have the right to say it "in public".
But, where is that "public" on the internet? I can make a website - a home - and invite other people to come visit me and listen to me ramble, or respond etc. But there is no public space, is there? And if not, should there be?
Most people don't own the homes they live in. Yet the landlord still doesn't get to tell them what to talk about over the dinner table. That's great, but imagine the government sold all sidewalks and public places to private interests, which dictated how you should dress and walk if you want to get out of your home, or to work. Should that be allowed?
Imagine getting thrown out of a mall because someone overheard and disapproved of your conversation there. Does that ever happen? I know there there is no clear line, but that there is one; e.g. if you trail other people and talk to yourself or a friend about them (especially if it's nasty and aggressive) in earshot, that's not exactly cool. But what, other than sanity, would stop all mall owners to agree that anyone e.g. declaring to like the color green should be kicked out, and to hire staff to enforce it? Would that be legal? If it was, should it be? And if it wouldn't be legal, why is that? In what ways, if at all, could or should this applied to the internet?
Furthermore, I do have the right to say it "in public".
But, where is that "public" on the internet? I can make a website - a home - and invite other people to come visit me and listen to me ramble, or respond etc. But there is no public space, is there? And if not, should there be?
Most people don't own the homes they live in. Yet the landlord still doesn't get to tell them what to talk about over the dinner table. That's great, but imagine the government sold all sidewalks and public places to private interests, which dictated how you should dress and walk if you want to get out of your home, or to work. Should that be allowed?
Imagine getting thrown out of a mall because someone overheard and disapproved of your conversation there. Does that ever happen? I know there there is no clear line, but that there is one; e.g. if you trail other people and talk to yourself or a friend about them (especially if it's nasty and aggressive) in earshot, that's not exactly cool. But what, other than sanity, would stop all mall owners to agree that anyone e.g. declaring to like the color green should be kicked out, and to hire staff to enforce it? Would that be legal? If it was, should it be? And if it wouldn't be legal, why is that? In what ways, if at all, could or should this applied to the internet?
There are indeed public spaces on the internet, many governments and government bodies have sites that are public where you can file a petition or voice a concern.
Most people (63%) own their homes in America, and there are protections in place for people who rent. Your landlord cannot monitor you.
When it comes to the mall though, it's more a matter of scope and scale. Overhearing something in a mall affects a handful of individuals and the intent was not to broadcast. If you stand up on a table in the cafeteria and start spouting hate speech, you can and will be escorted out by security.
The internet is different, because you cannot accidentally overhear a conversation. Said anywhere on the internet, especial a place like reddit of HN, it is viewable by the entirety of internet users. So direct comparisons to the physical world will always fall short.
Most people (63%) own their homes in America, and there are protections in place for people who rent. Your landlord cannot monitor you.
When it comes to the mall though, it's more a matter of scope and scale. Overhearing something in a mall affects a handful of individuals and the intent was not to broadcast. If you stand up on a table in the cafeteria and start spouting hate speech, you can and will be escorted out by security.
The internet is different, because you cannot accidentally overhear a conversation. Said anywhere on the internet, especial a place like reddit of HN, it is viewable by the entirety of internet users. So direct comparisons to the physical world will always fall short.
If you're looking for fair discussion about free speech, the US education establishment is the last place you want to look. They are completely overrun by PC moral panic, and not only real dissent and vigorous discussion representing diverse points is not welcomed, be it about free speech or any other topic, even mild critique from the friendly side or discomfort with exposure to unsettling thoughts is intolerable. E.g. see: http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid
...and Reddit isn't even banning vile human beings - there are a bunch of subs for hating fat people and other worse subs.
Reddit is only banning subs that brigade.
Reddit is only banning subs that brigade.
>As an occasional user of reddit, this whole ordeal has confirmed the reason why I prefer not to hang out in its forums.
It's really been awful and hard to avoid. I saw more racism on reddit in a couple few weeks (while the police shootings were in the news) than I've seen in the rest of my life combined. That and the increasingly popular /fatpeoplehate and I was pretty close to never visiting even the small well-moderated subs, the leakage was too strong.
And this recent thing, where there have been days where 5 of the top 10 highest voted stories across the entire site were literally titled: "Ellen Pao is a cunt"
It's really been awful and hard to avoid. I saw more racism on reddit in a couple few weeks (while the police shootings were in the news) than I've seen in the rest of my life combined. That and the increasingly popular /fatpeoplehate and I was pretty close to never visiting even the small well-moderated subs, the leakage was too strong.
And this recent thing, where there have been days where 5 of the top 10 highest voted stories across the entire site were literally titled: "Ellen Pao is a cunt"
I'm a pretty regular user, but have unsubscribed from a number of the default subreddits. Still, there is often a feeding frenzy mentality that takes over there. The racism during Ferguson was appalling. I saw a Pao subthread where people were discussing how sexually unappealing she is. It degenerated from there. Pretty awful stuff.
> I saw more racism on reddit in a couple few weeks (while the police shootings were in the news) than I've seen in the rest of my life combined.
Welcome to reality outside the Silicon Valley distortion bubble--Reddit's userbase is not confined to the Mandarins of technology.
Welcome to reality outside the Silicon Valley distortion bubble--Reddit's userbase is not confined to the Mandarins of technology.
Silicon Valley might not be representative of the nation or the world, but (thankfully!) anonymous internet forums aren't, either.
If they were, we'd be in the final years of the Ron Paul administration.
one of the craziest things about all the racism is that much of it is trolling from non-racist or not normally racist people looking to get a rise out of people. I see the same thing on YouTube and Reddit all of these troll parody accounts created by ant-social 20-somethings in an attempt to get a reaction or "shock" people.
Reddit can be a great place. Subs like /r/webdev and many, many others are very informative and a great way to meet people. I don't think I've ever seen any kind of racism / hate on the subs I frequent because none of them are main line.
Reddit can be a great place. Subs like /r/webdev and many, many others are very informative and a great way to meet people. I don't think I've ever seen any kind of racism / hate on the subs I frequent because none of them are main line.
I doubt your last sentence, as I regularly use Reddit and never saw anything like the story you mention. Certainly there were bad comments in more sanely named threads, but no highly upvoted threads with that title like you mention here.
Mind linking it?
Mind linking it?
[deleted]
It depends on the subreddits. With my subscriptions I barely noticed the whole thing.
As I mentioned last time this was on HN, me three.
I think there's an interesting cultural weirdness about Reddit here. Part of the problem with brigading is that if you link to another post in another subreddit, you're already logged in and have exactly as much power to upvote and downvote and comment as you did on the subreddit where you came from. There's the entire "no participation" community-by-obscurity trick, where subreddit CSS hides voting links if the hostname is np.reddit.com (this is supposed to be used for translations into the hypothetical "NP" ISO-631 language), but the fact that it's a CSS trick points to underlying discontent.
On the other hand, Reddit is a great platform for small communities precisely because you're already logged in. I've never created a Lambda the Ultimate account and only think about it maybe once every six months, but I'm subbed to /r/types, so anything that flies by gets onto my Reddit home page.
I'm not sure how to reconcile these two problems. A client-side aggregator would solve the issue of visiting each independent site, but the shared login mechanism is also crucial, and is both a blessing and a curse.
I think there's an interesting cultural weirdness about Reddit here. Part of the problem with brigading is that if you link to another post in another subreddit, you're already logged in and have exactly as much power to upvote and downvote and comment as you did on the subreddit where you came from. There's the entire "no participation" community-by-obscurity trick, where subreddit CSS hides voting links if the hostname is np.reddit.com (this is supposed to be used for translations into the hypothetical "NP" ISO-631 language), but the fact that it's a CSS trick points to underlying discontent.
On the other hand, Reddit is a great platform for small communities precisely because you're already logged in. I've never created a Lambda the Ultimate account and only think about it maybe once every six months, but I'm subbed to /r/types, so anything that flies by gets onto my Reddit home page.
I'm not sure how to reconcile these two problems. A client-side aggregator would solve the issue of visiting each independent site, but the shared login mechanism is also crucial, and is both a blessing and a curse.
There are many technical solutions here.
First is realizing that there are technical solutions. Some people say "you don't want technical solutions to social problems" but the fact that subreddits have no protection against brigading at all is a serious design flaw with reddit[1].
Second is some way to require subscription for some period of time for votes to appear or to count. The CSS-hack stuff was silly, and as someone who has been on reddit since its first year, I have never seen the CSS-side of reddit because I never turned it on.
One of the big complaints from the blackout was the complete lack of tool support and this is an example. Reddit tried to paper over the technical shortcoming with rules and social hacks but once different reddit communities who didn't like each other realized there was a way to attack each other they did so.
[1] to be fair I wouldn't have realized it either if I was in charge of the subreddit design
First is realizing that there are technical solutions. Some people say "you don't want technical solutions to social problems" but the fact that subreddits have no protection against brigading at all is a serious design flaw with reddit[1].
Second is some way to require subscription for some period of time for votes to appear or to count. The CSS-hack stuff was silly, and as someone who has been on reddit since its first year, I have never seen the CSS-side of reddit because I never turned it on.
One of the big complaints from the blackout was the complete lack of tool support and this is an example. Reddit tried to paper over the technical shortcoming with rules and social hacks but once different reddit communities who didn't like each other realized there was a way to attack each other they did so.
[1] to be fair I wouldn't have realized it either if I was in charge of the subreddit design
Only sub'd in smaller subreddits; didn't know everything was happening until I saw it on hn
The problem is some of the worst parts of reddit love to leak into the innocent, fun sections. My first experience with /r/fatpeoplehate was because one of the trolls started harassing a poster in /r/adventuretime who just wanted to show off an awesome hat she made.
It was disgusting and made me take a break from reddit immediately.
It was disgusting and made me take a break from reddit immediately.
I've been a heavy reddit user for 8 years and I did not know about this until I read about it in the New York Times. It's really a small subset of the reddits that were touched by the entire ordeal.
It completely and totally dominated /r/all for days, even weeks. /r/all is an aggregate of the most popular posts for the entire site, so I disagree only a small subset were affected. Maybe in number of subreddits, but the subreddits that were affected are absolutely gigantic.
Most people are completely unaware of /r/all
Isn't that what you get when going to the site while not being logged in?
(I echo the comments that say that Reddit has great subreddits like /r/Haskell and it's easy to mis all of this when you are just subscribed to a few subreddits.)
(I echo the comments that say that Reddit has great subreddits like /r/Haskell and it's easy to mis all of this when you are just subscribed to a few subreddits.)
No, you get a restricted set of /all with posts from some subreddits: https://www.reddit.com/r/defaults/comments/2ycn0x/list_of_de... is the current list.
Certainly not unaware just definitely not interested.
You say this with certainty? Do you know this to be true?
Because I seriously doubt it.
Because I seriously doubt it.
I'm not subscribed to any of the default subreddits; I imagine very many long-time users are the same way. I never read /r/all precisely because it's an aggregate of posts on subreddits I don't care about.
In particular, I'm subscribed to no general-purpose or wide-purpose subreddits. A few city/geographic subreddits mentioned it in passing, but, like, /r/programming or /r/nycbike or /r/radicalchristianity are going to treat any post about it as off-topic. You can't just post an advice animal about it, or request IAmAs from everyone involved, or say that today you learned whatever-it-may-be about Ellen Pao, or what have you. Nor can you do this about any other topic, which is why I bother to read these subreddits.
In particular, I'm subscribed to no general-purpose or wide-purpose subreddits. A few city/geographic subreddits mentioned it in passing, but, like, /r/programming or /r/nycbike or /r/radicalchristianity are going to treat any post about it as off-topic. You can't just post an advice animal about it, or request IAmAs from everyone involved, or say that today you learned whatever-it-may-be about Ellen Pao, or what have you. Nor can you do this about any other topic, which is why I bother to read these subreddits.
I browse /r/all occasionally to get out of the bubble of the subs I'm subscribed to. And sometimes there is a popular post in an obscure subreddit that I've never heard of before and get that gets me to subscribe.
They could add something like sub-reddit tags: NSFW, offensive, video games, sports, technical etc.
Then on r/all NSW/offensive are disabled by default (the same way NSFW is rigth now - you need to change your account settings).
Problem solved, FPH will never make it to people who don't want to see offensive staff.
Then on r/all NSW/offensive are disabled by default (the same way NSFW is rigth now - you need to change your account settings).
Problem solved, FPH will never make it to people who don't want to see offensive staff.
I think you're misunderstanding what the commenters in this subthread are saying. It's not simply that I don't want to see FPH. I also don't want to see advice animals, documentaries, creepypasta, or jokes. I have nothing against these as forms of content, it's just not what I visit Reddit for.
And even among technology, I have no interest in seeing things about Ruby or Go. Again, it's not that I dislike the languages, it's that they're not professionally relevant to me at the moment so it's not what I visit Reddit for.
So what we need is some way for subreddits to be tagged with their own content: /r/rust about Rust, /r/python about Python, /r/sandersforpresident about Bernie, etc., and some /r/all equivalent that just matches what I'm interested in -- which is exactly what https://reddit.com is for me, right now. I don't need /r/all to be fixed; I have no interest in even seeing "all technology" or "all religion" or "all presidential candidates".
FPH being or not being on /r/all is irrelevant.
And even among technology, I have no interest in seeing things about Ruby or Go. Again, it's not that I dislike the languages, it's that they're not professionally relevant to me at the moment so it's not what I visit Reddit for.
So what we need is some way for subreddits to be tagged with their own content: /r/rust about Rust, /r/python about Python, /r/sandersforpresident about Bernie, etc., and some /r/all equivalent that just matches what I'm interested in -- which is exactly what https://reddit.com is for me, right now. I don't need /r/all to be fixed; I have no interest in even seeing "all technology" or "all religion" or "all presidential candidates".
FPH being or not being on /r/all is irrelevant.
Honestly I'm so disappointed that Reddit's management allowed such a crappy culture to evolve in their forums for so long. I remember signing on in 2010 and just feeling really uncomfortable browsing any of the major subreddits. Why did it take so long to deal with characters like violentacrez?
The Reddit founders had very strong ideas about censorship and freedom of speech, and so as a matter of principle, they refused to censor subreddits unless the latter were breaking the law. As far as growth goes, this was probably the right choice, as a lot of Reddit's userbase came from previously marginalized groups who now had a forum for their interests on the Internet.
Note that Hacker News made the opposite choice: it has a variety of mechanisms (slow-banning, hell-banning, quarantine, explicit moderation) that makes it very clear to certain users that they are not welcome here. And it gets shit for it too: if you browse the New page with showdead turned on, you'll see pretty frequent posts from people who are hellbanned complaining about the fascist moderators of this site.
Ultimately, the problem is that for any given slice of humanity, there are significant other slices of humanity that the former find repugnant. And usually vice versa. As a community grows bigger, there's no way to avoid running into the bad apples. I actually think the subreddit system is about as good as it can currently get for a public, open forum.
Note that Hacker News made the opposite choice: it has a variety of mechanisms (slow-banning, hell-banning, quarantine, explicit moderation) that makes it very clear to certain users that they are not welcome here. And it gets shit for it too: if you browse the New page with showdead turned on, you'll see pretty frequent posts from people who are hellbanned complaining about the fascist moderators of this site.
Ultimately, the problem is that for any given slice of humanity, there are significant other slices of humanity that the former find repugnant. And usually vice versa. As a community grows bigger, there's no way to avoid running into the bad apples. I actually think the subreddit system is about as good as it can currently get for a public, open forum.
a variety of mechanisms (slow-banning, hell-banning, quarantine, explicit moderation) that makes it very clear to certain users that they are not welcome here.
Are you kidding? None of those make it the least bit clear to the users. HN is the most passive-aggressively moderated site I've ever seen. Also, hell-banning non-spammers is about the most cruel thing you can do. By extension of holding Pao responsible for all actions taken under her charge, I declare PG to be sociopathic, if not outright evil.
Are you kidding? None of those make it the least bit clear to the users. HN is the most passive-aggressively moderated site I've ever seen. Also, hell-banning non-spammers is about the most cruel thing you can do. By extension of holding Pao responsible for all actions taken under her charge, I declare PG to be sociopathic, if not outright evil.
But the moderation is part of what keeps it a fairly enjoyable experience still IMO.
That's irrelevant to my comment. However, I don't think you have any evidence to support your assumption.
As I expected: downvoted for pointing out the truth. HN is terrible.
As I expected: downvoted for pointing out the truth. HN is terrible.
> By extension of holding Pao responsible for all actions taken under her charge, I declare PG to be sociopathic, if not outright evil.
You don't think the downvotes are for this hyperbolic insult?
You don't think the downvotes are for this hyperbolic insult?
As a long time enthusiast of HN, and not a total shithead based on karma, I don't think there was anything hyperbolic in the original comment.
What is even slightly out of sorts about comparing Ellen Pao to Paul Graham?
What is even slightly out of sorts about comparing Ellen Pao to Paul Graham?
You don't think calling PG sociopathic or downright evil is hyperbolic?
That wasn't what was said, though. It wasn't particularly coherent, but it was a comparison between two prominent figures in two prominent online forums.
I don't think it's hyperbolic to say that both sites have an element of sociopathic and downright evil people influencing the culture. And reasonable people can still disagree about the level of accountability for the actions and inactions of Pao and Graham.
There are plenty of details that don't line up well when making that comparison, but I read the comment as intending to illustrate all the hyperbole around Ellen Pao. There are a lot of people on the Internet talking past each other this week.
I don't think it's hyperbolic to say that both sites have an element of sociopathic and downright evil people influencing the culture. And reasonable people can still disagree about the level of accountability for the actions and inactions of Pao and Graham.
There are plenty of details that don't line up well when making that comparison, but I read the comment as intending to illustrate all the hyperbole around Ellen Pao. There are a lot of people on the Internet talking past each other this week.
Haven't been around here long, but this place seems to me to be much better than reddit for what I'm looking for. To each his/her own, I guess, but so much of reddit was such utter and total shit for so long that the enjoyment evaporated.
How can I have evidence for an opinion other than expressing it?
>Why did it take so long to deal with characters like violentacrez?
He wasn't dealt with. He deleted his account in a frantic and futile attempt to avoid exposure.
Violentacres/Violentacrez (had to block him twice) set himself up as king of the reddit underworld. The admins cast a blind eye to his antics, and in return he prevented the raw sewage from gushing onto the clean streets of the reddit front page.
He was a troll from the start, and deliberately so, even in his choice of username which he had stolen from a popular blogger at the time. This illustrates the kind of brinkmanship that was his trademark - it is not quite impersonation to steal someone else's anonymous handle, but it is not quite ethical either.
His one good point was that he kept the other reddit trolls busy via interminable (literally) troll-fights.
He wasn't dealt with. He deleted his account in a frantic and futile attempt to avoid exposure.
Violentacres/Violentacrez (had to block him twice) set himself up as king of the reddit underworld. The admins cast a blind eye to his antics, and in return he prevented the raw sewage from gushing onto the clean streets of the reddit front page.
He was a troll from the start, and deliberately so, even in his choice of username which he had stolen from a popular blogger at the time. This illustrates the kind of brinkmanship that was his trademark - it is not quite impersonation to steal someone else's anonymous handle, but it is not quite ethical either.
His one good point was that he kept the other reddit trolls busy via interminable (literally) troll-fights.
> He wasn't dealt with. He deleted his account in a frantic and futile attempt to avoid exposure.
Doxxing is doxxing. It doesn't become 'exposure' when people you like do it.
Doxxing is doxxing. It doesn't become 'exposure' when people you like do it.
>Doxxing is doxxing.
I meant that the reddit admins didn't 'deal with' Violentacrez. Chen doxxed him, destroying his career, despite the full knowledge that Violentacrez had innocent dependants who would also be hurt badly. If Violentacrez deserved to be 'punished', then whatever punishment was meted out should have fallen exclusively on him.
>It doesn't become 'exposure'.
Bad choice of words. I intended the term in a literal sense, not a judgemental one. It was revolting how Chen made Violentacrez crawl in the false hope he could salvage some part of his livelihood.
>...when people you like do it.
I dislike the people who doxxed Violentacrez very much. I disagree with the use of doxxing as a tactic.
I meant that the reddit admins didn't 'deal with' Violentacrez. Chen doxxed him, destroying his career, despite the full knowledge that Violentacrez had innocent dependants who would also be hurt badly. If Violentacrez deserved to be 'punished', then whatever punishment was meted out should have fallen exclusively on him.
>It doesn't become 'exposure'.
Bad choice of words. I intended the term in a literal sense, not a judgemental one. It was revolting how Chen made Violentacrez crawl in the false hope he could salvage some part of his livelihood.
>...when people you like do it.
I dislike the people who doxxed Violentacrez very much. I disagree with the use of doxxing as a tactic.
Wait, who is right, you or danielweber above?
In so far as I can remember he had good relations with many on the staff and even ended up with a special icon next to his username.
The /r/SubredditDrama posts in regards to the incident are correct as I remember it:
Part I - violentacrez: https://archive.is/7ygdr
Part II - CreepShots: https://archive.is/8AVd8
Part 2 above ends with a link to VAs alleged last comments with an alt:
http://i.imgur.com/E8fCA.png
The /r/SubredditDrama posts in regards to the incident are correct as I remember it:
Part I - violentacrez: https://archive.is/7ygdr
Part II - CreepShots: https://archive.is/8AVd8
Part 2 above ends with a link to VAs alleged last comments with an alt:
http://i.imgur.com/E8fCA.png
The special icon was subreddit CSS added most likely by himself. Give me five minutes and a subreddit and I'll make your username 72px. The admins didn't bless him with a flag at any time.
It's a common meme that violentacrez was "special," had some kind of sway with the admins beyond any other moderator, received instruction from the admins that was unique and not the usual ban threats that many subs get in modmail, and so on. Most people who say these things heard it from someone else, because the actual story is that he was barely tolerated. He even says so himself in your linked thread.
I don't get the elevation of violentacrez to something special. I see it a lot (friendly with the admins! The admins asked him to help with creepshots! it's all over this thread) and I don't get it. He was a power mod. So are hundreds of others. There are a bunch of Reddit yarns that put the Kubrick lunar landing to shame; some of them are making an appearance in this thread.
It's a common meme that violentacrez was "special," had some kind of sway with the admins beyond any other moderator, received instruction from the admins that was unique and not the usual ban threats that many subs get in modmail, and so on. Most people who say these things heard it from someone else, because the actual story is that he was barely tolerated. He even says so himself in your linked thread.
I don't get the elevation of violentacrez to something special. I see it a lot (friendly with the admins! The admins asked him to help with creepshots! it's all over this thread) and I don't get it. He was a power mod. So are hundreds of others. There are a bunch of Reddit yarns that put the Kubrick lunar landing to shame; some of them are making an appearance in this thread.
Wow, guess I somehow missed this dramafest.
[deleted]
> Why did it take so long to deal with characters like violentacrez?
The admins asked violentacrez to help with the /r/creepshots. Later history got rewritten to say that he had created it, maybe to throw him under the bus.
The admins asked violentacrez to help with the /r/creepshots. Later history got rewritten to say that he had created it, maybe to throw him under the bus.
[deleted]
> feeling really uncomfortable browsing any of the major subreddits
Genuinely curious: why?
Genuinely curious: why?
Hard to explain objectively; I think the things that turned me off to reddit back then (now it's more mainstream) were people's willingness to assume tons of knowledge of topics they didn't really know about, the general white, upper middle class male from the burbs tastes of things like r/music and other cultural subreddits. It felt like walking into a videogame fraternity and realizing I didn't belong there.
That's a highly subjective opinion...but it's how I felt. r/shitredditsays probably captures a bit of what made me uncomfortable.
That's a highly subjective opinion...but it's how I felt. r/shitredditsays probably captures a bit of what made me uncomfortable.
There's certainly a white fraternity feel in a lot of reddits, so I can imagine how people can feel disconnect to it. But /r/shitredditsays, well... I was subscribed to it for some time, and the posts themselves do a good job at noticing really bad behaviour on reddit sometimes — but then I discovered the comments there, and I must say, it feels like half of the users of this sub are trolls who pretend to be THE worst strawmen feminists/SJW (I hate this term, but since we're talking about strawmen, I think it fits) ever. Just saying.
The SRS sidebar makes it pretty clear that the whole SJW façade is exactly that: a façade. They obviously have legitimate complaints but hyperbolise everything to poke fun at it.
They don't accept the "it's just a joke" excuse from their targets, why should we accept it from them?
the idea is to expose people to a "taste of their own medicine", for what that's worth.
> targets
> we
> them
Gah.
> we
> them
Gah.
That doesn't make it any better.
Why should the reddit administration interfere with communities ran by third parties?
IRC networks are still running just fine with minimal intervention.
IRC networks are still running just fine with minimal intervention.
Or for that matter newsgroups. I guess since newsgroups are subscribed by the carrier, IRC might still be the better example.
there is no /r/all for irc or newsgroups.
> really uncomfortable
I know what you mean. I logged into /r/funny one day and someone had used the "b" word. I was just really concerned and uncomfortable with how things were going. What did you end up doing?
I know what you mean. I logged into /r/funny one day and someone had used the "b" word. I was just really concerned and uncomfortable with how things were going. What did you end up doing?
> the vitriol which I kept seeing peripherally... was absolutely appalling.
I'm not a Reddit user, but the vitriol seemed pretty commensurate with what motivated it, which among other things included the despicable (and possibly illegal) firing of an employee for having leukemia (more or less).
I'm not a Reddit user, but the vitriol seemed pretty commensurate with what motivated it, which among other things included the despicable (and possibly illegal) firing of an employee for having leukemia (more or less).
>I'm not a Reddit user, but the vitriol seemed pretty commensurate with what motivated it, which among other things included the despicable (and possibly illegal) firing of an employee for having leukemia (more or less).
That employee got cancer in 2012. He got a salary for almost two years while too sick to work, of the total three years he was at the company. Four months of that salary undo Pao. Then he got an additional full year of health coverage when they finally couldn't wait any longer to fill his position. He was never well enough to even move to the Reddit officers, which was the plan when they hired him in 2012.
That's not just not despicable, it's laudable, and it's better than how you'd be treated at 99% of companies in the US. And somehow this became twisted by the furious mob into a story about a vicious CEO firing someone for having cancer?
(Legally in the US you are guaranteed three months of unpaid leave for getting sick. Although ironically in this case this employee didn't even qualify for that since he got sick before he was at the company for 12 months.)
That this became the battle-flag for everyone to pitchfork is appalling. Seriously appalling.
That employee got cancer in 2012. He got a salary for almost two years while too sick to work, of the total three years he was at the company. Four months of that salary undo Pao. Then he got an additional full year of health coverage when they finally couldn't wait any longer to fill his position. He was never well enough to even move to the Reddit officers, which was the plan when they hired him in 2012.
That's not just not despicable, it's laudable, and it's better than how you'd be treated at 99% of companies in the US. And somehow this became twisted by the furious mob into a story about a vicious CEO firing someone for having cancer?
(Legally in the US you are guaranteed three months of unpaid leave for getting sick. Although ironically in this case this employee didn't even qualify for that since he got sick before he was at the company for 12 months.)
That this became the battle-flag for everyone to pitchfork is appalling. Seriously appalling.
A few things:
> somehow this became twisted by the furious mob
There's no mob here. If anything, most people seem unfamiliar with this episode.
> Legally in the US you are guaranteed three months of unpaid leave for getting sick
Except where one qualifies for protection under the ADA [1].
> That's not just not despicable, it's laudable
There are two things here. That Reddit maintained the employee for nearly two years, as you say, is clearly laudable, though this decision predated Pao. My overall view of the situation, and likely this goes for others, is in how it was ultimately handled, where Pao said one thing to the employee then did another, more than once. I can see a situation where this could have been handled openly and candidly, with humanity, but that's not what happened.
Maybe in the end he would have relapsed again, and maybe his doctor would have determined that he was too sick to perform his duties, and maybe firing him for that actually would have been legal (without knowing his ADA status we can't know), but that's quite a few 'ifs'. Not knowing what would have happened, Pao could have addressed the uncertainly in an honest way, but instead she chose to lie to and then fire the employee. I'm not a one man mob, and I respect your difference of opinion, but that to me is despicable.
[1] http://www.cancer.org/treatment/findingandpayingfortreatment...
> somehow this became twisted by the furious mob
There's no mob here. If anything, most people seem unfamiliar with this episode.
> Legally in the US you are guaranteed three months of unpaid leave for getting sick
Except where one qualifies for protection under the ADA [1].
> That's not just not despicable, it's laudable
There are two things here. That Reddit maintained the employee for nearly two years, as you say, is clearly laudable, though this decision predated Pao. My overall view of the situation, and likely this goes for others, is in how it was ultimately handled, where Pao said one thing to the employee then did another, more than once. I can see a situation where this could have been handled openly and candidly, with humanity, but that's not what happened.
Maybe in the end he would have relapsed again, and maybe his doctor would have determined that he was too sick to perform his duties, and maybe firing him for that actually would have been legal (without knowing his ADA status we can't know), but that's quite a few 'ifs'. Not knowing what would have happened, Pao could have addressed the uncertainly in an honest way, but instead she chose to lie to and then fire the employee. I'm not a one man mob, and I respect your difference of opinion, but that to me is despicable.
[1] http://www.cancer.org/treatment/findingandpayingfortreatment...
>There's no mob here. If anything, most people seem unfamiliar with this episode.
Top post on multiple reddits, various random threads upvoted to /all, brought up in this thread by multiple people as a reason the CEO was despicable.
>There are two things here. That Reddit maintained the employee for nearly two years, as you say, is clearly laudable, though this decision predated Pao.
While she was CEO he got 4 months of the almost two years of paid time while he was unable to work. Also under he he got an extra year of medical insurance.
>Maybe in the end he would have relapsed again, and maybe his doctor would have determined that he was too sick to perform his duties, and maybe firing him for that actually would have been legal (without knowing his ADA status we can't know), but that's quite a few 'ifs'.
He was supposed to move to the office in 2012. He was never well enough to do so. At the time he was finally let go, he still didn't have a move scheduled. He was still 2 to 3 months away from being able to to start the job. Note his woolly timelines, especially in his followup comments, where 5 months later he was still not ready for full time work.
Changed your mind is not lying, "Sorry, we actually need to someone to start this job immediately, we can't keep waiting."
All this is giving him the most charitable reading of his posts, a post he made at the height of rage at the CEO filled with obvious dog meat like: "Does anyone know of any Reddit alternatives?" "I don't know anything about why Victoria was fired, but he's some speculation as to why she was fired." Etc.
So yeah, I find it despicable that people find this despicable, that comments all across the internet are calling her 'human garbage' and whatnot for treating an employee better than 99% of other companies would have. It's absurd. The story should have been, "Wow, reddit treats employees amazingly!"
Top post on multiple reddits, various random threads upvoted to /all, brought up in this thread by multiple people as a reason the CEO was despicable.
>There are two things here. That Reddit maintained the employee for nearly two years, as you say, is clearly laudable, though this decision predated Pao.
While she was CEO he got 4 months of the almost two years of paid time while he was unable to work. Also under he he got an extra year of medical insurance.
>Maybe in the end he would have relapsed again, and maybe his doctor would have determined that he was too sick to perform his duties, and maybe firing him for that actually would have been legal (without knowing his ADA status we can't know), but that's quite a few 'ifs'.
He was supposed to move to the office in 2012. He was never well enough to do so. At the time he was finally let go, he still didn't have a move scheduled. He was still 2 to 3 months away from being able to to start the job. Note his woolly timelines, especially in his followup comments, where 5 months later he was still not ready for full time work.
Changed your mind is not lying, "Sorry, we actually need to someone to start this job immediately, we can't keep waiting."
All this is giving him the most charitable reading of his posts, a post he made at the height of rage at the CEO filled with obvious dog meat like: "Does anyone know of any Reddit alternatives?" "I don't know anything about why Victoria was fired, but he's some speculation as to why she was fired." Etc.
So yeah, I find it despicable that people find this despicable, that comments all across the internet are calling her 'human garbage' and whatnot for treating an employee better than 99% of other companies would have. It's absurd. The story should have been, "Wow, reddit treats employees amazingly!"
Do you have a primary source for this information?
Not sure what the downvoting is all about - let's hope you never get cancer. The source is the employee himself who did an AMA that was partially censored by Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3c0idl/i_am_dacvak_fo...
It was on HN a while back.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3c0idl/i_am_dacvak_fo...
It was on HN a while back.
> The source is the employee himself who did an AMA that was partially censored by Reddit
It looks like Dacvak deleted his own posts: "Edit: I've removed this post. All future discussions regarding this subject will be between me and reddit."
It looks like Dacvak deleted his own posts: "Edit: I've removed this post. All future discussions regarding this subject will be between me and reddit."
I think he just deleted that one post. The rest were deleted by Reddit, as was the entire conversation for a while, before being restored.
Hanging out on Reddit has made me understand and appreciate Linus Torvald's style of community management.
This is the best description of reddit I've found so far: https://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/619625808403894272
As an aside, I think it's notable how Metafilter has maintained a high-quality link aggregation/discussion forum over many years through the use of community norms and relatively aggressive moderation.
That analogy doesn't account for what happens when a submission gets posted to both a "pinot" subreddit and a "sewage" subreddit, and subscribers in the sewage subreddit see the post in the pinot subreddit from the other discussions tab and "invade" the other subreddit.
Subreddits and their communities are not neatly contained in clearly labelled bottles.
Subreddits and their communities are not neatly contained in clearly labelled bottles.
If you are only an occasional user why are you even commenting? I'm only picking on you because you are an easy target, but I have seen a number of HN posts from people who first state that they barely use reddit, then go on to blast all reddit users as vitriol spitting losers. What do you gain from getting on this bandwagon?
People behind internet coffers are quite nasty, even cruel at times. I guess that's what human nature is. Power corrupts anyone and everyone.
Agreed.
Some of the things I see people say on the internet makes me wonder what kind of social lives those people can possibly lead while being so hopelessly devoid of any empathy.
Some of the things I see people say on the internet makes me wonder what kind of social lives those people can possibly lead while being so hopelessly devoid of any empathy.
If you follows only subreddits focussed on interrests you have, reddit is a good source of information, not unlike Usenet 20 years ago.
I came this close to not even knowing about this, until someone posted something in /r/dataisbeautiful about Ellen Pao's comment karma over time.
Just like Facebook, it's almost entirely related to what you subscribe to/follow. /r/chess was entirely mum on the situation, for example.
Just like Facebook, it's almost entirely related to what you subscribe to/follow. /r/chess was entirely mum on the situation, for example.
This? https://i.imgur.com/nrYiK5M.png
I find it telling it was negative a majority of the time. Usually "mods" get +1'd just for being mods (common on many forums). It shows, to me at least, that what she said rarely was supported by the community.
I find it telling it was negative a majority of the time. Usually "mods" get +1'd just for being mods (common on many forums). It shows, to me at least, that what she said rarely was supported by the community.
Note that this is a chart of per-comment karma, not a trend of her total karma. Thus explaining the sheer cliff between a largely-downvoted comment and a largely-upvoted one.
I completely and utterly disagree with this opinion, and furthermore find it dangerous for what it suggests - specifically, the idea that a large group of anonymous people can do anything but fall prey to their collective impulse.
I would argue that decisions of large bodies of anonymous people are historically and demonstrably inaccurate, misleading, nearsighted, and wholly terrible for not only the decision they're making, but also the good of the body itself.
Groups of people, at a sufficient capacity, are simply some of the worst, most base, and utterly abhorrent things to exist on this planet, and claiming that the disapproval displayed by the group calling itself "Reddit" is "telling" would be, to say the least, a misstep.
I would argue that decisions of large bodies of anonymous people are historically and demonstrably inaccurate, misleading, nearsighted, and wholly terrible for not only the decision they're making, but also the good of the body itself.
Groups of people, at a sufficient capacity, are simply some of the worst, most base, and utterly abhorrent things to exist on this planet, and claiming that the disapproval displayed by the group calling itself "Reddit" is "telling" would be, to say the least, a misstep.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. We have decided that no one is more trustworthy to pick our leaders than large bodies of anonymous people.
Is it, really? I mean, beyond Winston's quip, what empirical evidence do you have to support that?
Democracies have been known for only a few brief periods of human existence. They emerged for a few hundred years, in a very limited sense, in one city-state within Greece, 2500 years ago. And then disappeared until just over 200 years ago, with some spread since.
Fewer than half the people on Earth today live in democracies (though it's close: 48%), only 12.5% live in full democracies. Far more live in autocratic regimes than any other of the forms measured by the Democracy Index: 37.6%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
The fastest growing economy in the world is solidly autocratic: China. Despite the claims of the benefits of both democracy and capitalism, many critical advances have come from countries which lacked one or both institutions: Nazi Germany developed jet aircraft and missiles, Communist Russia was the first to orbit satellites and put man in space.
I'm not opposed to democracy. But it seems it's got a few challenges as well.
Democracies have been known for only a few brief periods of human existence. They emerged for a few hundred years, in a very limited sense, in one city-state within Greece, 2500 years ago. And then disappeared until just over 200 years ago, with some spread since.
Fewer than half the people on Earth today live in democracies (though it's close: 48%), only 12.5% live in full democracies. Far more live in autocratic regimes than any other of the forms measured by the Democracy Index: 37.6%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
The fastest growing economy in the world is solidly autocratic: China. Despite the claims of the benefits of both democracy and capitalism, many critical advances have come from countries which lacked one or both institutions: Nazi Germany developed jet aircraft and missiles, Communist Russia was the first to orbit satellites and put man in space.
I'm not opposed to democracy. But it seems it's got a few challenges as well.
Yes democracy has its problems as well, that's the entire point of that famous quip. Which countries would you most want to live in and how many of them are democracies Nazi Germany accomplished some impressive things, but they were the exact opposite of good government. A clear majority of countries are either actual democracies or pretend to be, because of a near worldwide consensus that democracy is the best option we have.
So: when did "democracy" become an overt policy goal? And how?
(There's a story there. It's interesting.)
There are numerous states that have functioned quite well that _weren't_ (or aren't) democracies.
Nazi Germany was, in fact, a democracy. Hitler stood for election in Germany's presidential elections of 1932. While he didn't win a majority of the July vote (none of the _six_ candidates did), he was appointed chancellor following a series of inconclusive elections.
A concern of mine is whether democracy brings wealth, or wealth democracy. Causality's arrow is sticky.
(There's a story there. It's interesting.)
There are numerous states that have functioned quite well that _weren't_ (or aren't) democracies.
Nazi Germany was, in fact, a democracy. Hitler stood for election in Germany's presidential elections of 1932. While he didn't win a majority of the July vote (none of the _six_ candidates did), he was appointed chancellor following a series of inconclusive elections.
A concern of mine is whether democracy brings wealth, or wealth democracy. Causality's arrow is sticky.
Actually we ended up proving that democracies are pretty sticky - it is hard to go from a genuine democracy to a dictatorship, both because people don't like to lose power but also because if a significant group becomes unhappy with the way things are going they will get enough political power to change things within the current system.
In fact I don't know of a true democracy (defined here as a democracy where no group is excluded, where votes are counted fairly and where each person who wishes to do so can vote for whatever he wants) that has since transitioned into anything else.
None of this, of course, means that democracy is a good system, merely that it is sticky.
In fact I don't know of a true democracy (defined here as a democracy where no group is excluded, where votes are counted fairly and where each person who wishes to do so can vote for whatever he wants) that has since transitioned into anything else.
None of this, of course, means that democracy is a good system, merely that it is sticky.
Two points -- what you're describing is a republic moreso than a democracy, and those are pretty sticky indeed.
Reddit is also not a democracy -- it's a series of benevolent dictatorships, where the content is decided on by anarchistic vote, but can be controlled ultimately through a supreme leader, empowered by the virtue of their age (the oldest member of the subreddit gets to decide the content of that subreddit).
Reddit is also not a democracy -- it's a series of benevolent dictatorships, where the content is decided on by anarchistic vote, but can be controlled ultimately through a supreme leader, empowered by the virtue of their age (the oldest member of the subreddit gets to decide the content of that subreddit).
Democracy works not because it provides a means of putting people into power, but because it provides a bloodless means of removing them.
In the past, factions went to war in order to take absolute power. When they achieved it they would destroy all rivals and enforce strict conformity. They would try to avoid the necessity of constant fighting to hold on to their position by employing various means to cement their legitimacy in the minds of the ruled. One of these was the idea of an aristocracy which had an inherent right to rule. Another was harnessing religion to declare that the rulers held power by divine right, making rebellion a sin. Regime change would only come about through violence.
In a democracy the competing factions can bide their time in the anticipation that they can get into power again. Because of that, they do not feel compelled to use violence to seize power, and by the same token, violence does not have to be used to suppress them.
An interesting side effect of democracy was the relaxation of the need for absolute conformity. This facilitated social mobility, commerce and the flourishing of literature and scientific exploration, all of which would have been seen as subversive and dangerous to the status quo in the older way of doing things, and consequently, rigorously suppressed.
In the past, factions went to war in order to take absolute power. When they achieved it they would destroy all rivals and enforce strict conformity. They would try to avoid the necessity of constant fighting to hold on to their position by employing various means to cement their legitimacy in the minds of the ruled. One of these was the idea of an aristocracy which had an inherent right to rule. Another was harnessing religion to declare that the rulers held power by divine right, making rebellion a sin. Regime change would only come about through violence.
In a democracy the competing factions can bide their time in the anticipation that they can get into power again. Because of that, they do not feel compelled to use violence to seize power, and by the same token, violence does not have to be used to suppress them.
An interesting side effect of democracy was the relaxation of the need for absolute conformity. This facilitated social mobility, commerce and the flourishing of literature and scientific exploration, all of which would have been seen as subversive and dangerous to the status quo in the older way of doing things, and consequently, rigorously suppressed.
I'm confused how having a negative karma on Reddit is not a sign that people on Reddit find you disagreeable. It's a metric designed to showcase one's agreeability or disagreeability. If more people agree with you than disagree with you: karma will largely reflect that. If it's consistently negative, people consistently disagree with you.
Having a trend over time allows for a better judgement as karma is a metric that can change drastically over time. A generally disagreeable person can have a huge spike in positive karma but that doesn't mean they're liked overall. So it helps that the chart shows as far back as 2013.
A slow overall increase with several downward trends means you're generally agreeable but have a controversial opinion (opposed to the "collective group mentality"). A slow overall decrease with an upward trend now and then means you're generally disagreeable and occasionally say something the community agrees with.
Her karma over time tells me that she's generally disagreeable with a few moments that brought her from "negative" to "neutral" and that before the subreddit bans her popularity was spiraling downwards, hit a full catalyst, and the apology was rather well received.
If her karma was overall positive and only trended negatively in light of the subreddit ban and the Victoria mishap - it'd be telling of a very different story. The fact that it's been consistently negative is telling of the larger picture.
Having a trend over time allows for a better judgement as karma is a metric that can change drastically over time. A generally disagreeable person can have a huge spike in positive karma but that doesn't mean they're liked overall. So it helps that the chart shows as far back as 2013.
A slow overall increase with several downward trends means you're generally agreeable but have a controversial opinion (opposed to the "collective group mentality"). A slow overall decrease with an upward trend now and then means you're generally disagreeable and occasionally say something the community agrees with.
Her karma over time tells me that she's generally disagreeable with a few moments that brought her from "negative" to "neutral" and that before the subreddit bans her popularity was spiraling downwards, hit a full catalyst, and the apology was rather well received.
If her karma was overall positive and only trended negatively in light of the subreddit ban and the Victoria mishap - it'd be telling of a very different story. The fact that it's been consistently negative is telling of the larger picture.
> I'm confused how having a negative karma on Reddit is not a sign that people on Reddit find you disagreeable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias
There are reasons other than "I disagree with your specific comment" that a person might be downvoted.
And do you know something about Victoria's firing that everyone else doesn't? Do you know why she was fired?
And do you know something about Victoria's firing that everyone else doesn't? Do you know why she was fired?
>There are reasons other than "I disagree with your specific comment" that a person might be downvoted.
Including, but not limited to, "I hate this person so will downvote everything and anything they say."
Which makes you a disagreeable person if enough people hate you enough to downvote anything you say.
Including, but not limited to, "I hate this person so will downvote everything and anything they say."
Which makes you a disagreeable person if enough people hate you enough to downvote anything you say.
No, it quite simply does not.
Reddit doesn't flag your admin/modship next to your post unless you explicitly opt in for that post.
Wow.
Am I the only one that sees this as possibly the greatest potential "turnaround" story ever created?
Am I the only one that sees this as possibly the greatest potential "turnaround" story ever created?
It shows to me that she was dogged by misogynists and MRAs excited by the discrimination lawsuit, from the start of her Reddit tenure through to the end.
In a similar fashion, if Barack Obama posted something like "Mom and apple pie are both great.", it would be downvoted by his political foes and upvoted by his political allies. That should not be taken as an indication that "the community" opposes or disagrees with his viewpoints on Mom and apple pie.
In a similar fashion, if Barack Obama posted something like "Mom and apple pie are both great.", it would be downvoted by his political foes and upvoted by his political allies. That should not be taken as an indication that "the community" opposes or disagrees with his viewpoints on Mom and apple pie.
[deleted]
I see a lot of comments like yours claiming that the hate was only because she's a minority. I get the feeling such people find it unacceptable to dislike a woman or a black/Asian person regardless of what they did.
I disliked her for
* Firing Victoria, who took AMAs to the next level. I enjoyed them a ton.
* Firing an employee for having leukemia - http://redd.it/3c0idl
* Using corporate weasel words instead of having the guts to be honest - "We're banning behaviour, not ideas"
* Treating the community with disdain and contempt, while not understanding how reddit works at all. She derided her detractors as being a very tiny minority without realising that the most active people are the ones creating and moderating the content that helps reddit thrive. If these people are unhappy with her and leave, then the passive majority (such as myself) will follow them to wherever they go.
But no, I'm probably a misogynist and a racist who hates Ellen Pao because she lost a gender discrimination lawsuit, amirite?
I disliked her for
* Firing Victoria, who took AMAs to the next level. I enjoyed them a ton.
* Firing an employee for having leukemia - http://redd.it/3c0idl
* Using corporate weasel words instead of having the guts to be honest - "We're banning behaviour, not ideas"
* Treating the community with disdain and contempt, while not understanding how reddit works at all. She derided her detractors as being a very tiny minority without realising that the most active people are the ones creating and moderating the content that helps reddit thrive. If these people are unhappy with her and leave, then the passive majority (such as myself) will follow them to wherever they go.
But no, I'm probably a misogynist and a racist who hates Ellen Pao because she lost a gender discrimination lawsuit, amirite?
>Firing Victoria, who took AMAs to the next level. I enjoyed them a ton.
The Victoria specific AMAs tended to be short, done on the phone where she types responses, and oriented around'My new movie is out Friday don't miss it' instead of a conversation. I prefer the raw format myself.
>Firing an employee for having leukemia - http://redd.it/3c0idl
That this became the battle-flag for everyone to pitchfork is seriously appalling:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9868887
>Using corporate weasel words instead of having the guts to be honest - "We're banning behaviour, not ideas"
I'm personally only familiar with the banning of /neofags because I know people who were targeted and harassed by that reddit. It was clearly banned for the behavior of the mods in the reddit, and not for content, as evidenced by other reddits with much worse content not being banned at the same time.
>She derided her detractors as being a very tiny minority without realising that the most active people are the ones creating and moderating the content that helps reddit thrive.
What does this even mean, all her detractors were also the ones creating the content? Most of the reddits complained about wanting more powerful mod tools, not less control: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cuw90/megathrea...
The Victoria specific AMAs tended to be short, done on the phone where she types responses, and oriented around'My new movie is out Friday don't miss it' instead of a conversation. I prefer the raw format myself.
>Firing an employee for having leukemia - http://redd.it/3c0idl
That this became the battle-flag for everyone to pitchfork is seriously appalling:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9868887
>Using corporate weasel words instead of having the guts to be honest - "We're banning behaviour, not ideas"
I'm personally only familiar with the banning of /neofags because I know people who were targeted and harassed by that reddit. It was clearly banned for the behavior of the mods in the reddit, and not for content, as evidenced by other reddits with much worse content not being banned at the same time.
>She derided her detractors as being a very tiny minority without realising that the most active people are the ones creating and moderating the content that helps reddit thrive.
What does this even mean, all her detractors were also the ones creating the content? Most of the reddits complained about wanting more powerful mod tools, not less control: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cuw90/megathrea...
> oriented around'My new movie...
Incorrect. She did some of the best ones. The ones with Bill Murray and Sean Bean really stick out in my mind as being really great. You couldn't see either of them, but thanks to her you could make out inflections, emphasis and character. It was like hearing them talk, rather than having them type. Either way, regardless of what you think I loved the AMAs that Victoria assisted with, and so did a whole lot of other people. Pao took that away from us, and you're saying that we shouldn't criticise her for that?
> That this became the battle-flag to pitch-fork
He was almost recovered. He would have rejoined work in a month, but she rejected that. That reddit was so benevolent to him was thanks to hueypriest and Yishan Wong. She reversed this policy. Now you're saying its appalling that people are criticising Pao because Yishan and hueypriest were so nice.
> What does this even mean?
It means that the people most engaged with the site (top submitters and moderators) were unhappy with her. The site depends on these people for quality content This was written in really simple English, I don't see what your trouble with understanding it was.
I feel like you were in the flow of a "point-by-point takedown" and had to say something about the last line, but that left you looking pretty silly by the end.
Incorrect. She did some of the best ones. The ones with Bill Murray and Sean Bean really stick out in my mind as being really great. You couldn't see either of them, but thanks to her you could make out inflections, emphasis and character. It was like hearing them talk, rather than having them type. Either way, regardless of what you think I loved the AMAs that Victoria assisted with, and so did a whole lot of other people. Pao took that away from us, and you're saying that we shouldn't criticise her for that?
> That this became the battle-flag to pitch-fork
He was almost recovered. He would have rejoined work in a month, but she rejected that. That reddit was so benevolent to him was thanks to hueypriest and Yishan Wong. She reversed this policy. Now you're saying its appalling that people are criticising Pao because Yishan and hueypriest were so nice.
> What does this even mean?
It means that the people most engaged with the site (top submitters and moderators) were unhappy with her. The site depends on these people for quality content This was written in really simple English, I don't see what your trouble with understanding it was.
I feel like you were in the flow of a "point-by-point takedown" and had to say something about the last line, but that left you looking pretty silly by the end.
>He was almost recovered. He would have rejoined work in a month, but she rejected that. That reddit was so benevolent to him was thanks to hueypriest and Yishan Wong. She reversed this policy. Now you're saying its appalling that people are criticising Pao because Yishan and hueypriest were so nice.
While she was CEO he got 4 months of the almost two years being paid while too sick to work. He got an extra full year of insurance.
He never had a move date scheduled. He was "2-3 months away" and in his AMA when asked where he was working today? He said he still wasn't feeling well enough for full time work - this was 5 months later. "Sorry, we can't keep waiting, we need someone who can do the job immediately."
So yes it is appalling that this became the reason to be furious, while treating an employee better than he would be treated at 99% of other companies in the US. In a reasonable universe the story would have been: "Wow, reddit treats employees amazingly."
While she was CEO he got 4 months of the almost two years being paid while too sick to work. He got an extra full year of insurance.
He never had a move date scheduled. He was "2-3 months away" and in his AMA when asked where he was working today? He said he still wasn't feeling well enough for full time work - this was 5 months later. "Sorry, we can't keep waiting, we need someone who can do the job immediately."
So yes it is appalling that this became the reason to be furious, while treating an employee better than he would be treated at 99% of other companies in the US. In a reasonable universe the story would have been: "Wow, reddit treats employees amazingly."
I'm curious about your first two points -- are you privvy to information about those firings that the general public is not privy to? Because the general public, for legal reasons, is not privy to most of the information surrounding those firings, and it strikes me as interesting that you have an opinion related to them despite not having any information.
To clarify those two points
* I resented that she fired Victoria, because I liked Victoria and what she brought to reddit. I didn't speculate on why she was fired at all. But let me speculate a little now - it wasn't for performance reasons judging by what every single person who has worked with Victoria says.
* I relayed what the employee in question said about it on reddit. If its a question of trusting what he says or what Pao says, I'll err on the side of the former, because of the duplicity that Pao has exhibited in recent months.
I hope that clears it up.
* I resented that she fired Victoria, because I liked Victoria and what she brought to reddit. I didn't speculate on why she was fired at all. But let me speculate a little now - it wasn't for performance reasons judging by what every single person who has worked with Victoria says.
* I relayed what the employee in question said about it on reddit. If its a question of trusting what he says or what Pao says, I'll err on the side of the former, because of the duplicity that Pao has exhibited in recent months.
I hope that clears it up.
Some griefers did key on that. But overall, she was perceived as opposing free speech, which is a core value for numerous (maybe even most) Reddit users.
FWIW, harassment isn't free speech, even when you're talking about the government, and aside from basic decency, the company could be responsible, esp if it facilitated people actually following through with threats.
It is unreasonably acceptable for death, rape, and other threats to be used as a form of outspoken criticism online, and as an outspoken critic, I don't appreciate being lumped in.
It is unreasonably acceptable for death, rape, and other threats to be used as a form of outspoken criticism online, and as an outspoken critic, I don't appreciate being lumped in.
That sounds reasonable; only observe one side of the conflict and none of what might have provoked it and base your whole opinion on that.
There was a lot of evil stuff spewing about relating to Ms. Pao. It was pretty sad, and those people should feel ashamed of saying those things about anyone.
On the other hand, I don't think that she did a very good job managing the crisis (the first one caused by banning certain douchy subreddits, and the second one caused by the firing), which is one thing a CEO needs to be able to do.
On the other hand, I don't think that she did a very good job managing the crisis (the first one caused by banning certain douchy subreddits, and the second one caused by the firing), which is one thing a CEO needs to be able to do.
Yeah, exactly. Also, firing someone without some kind of plan for redistributing her duties is a Management 101 no-no. Ellen Pao failed as CEO of Reddit. That has nothing to do with the 1% or whatever of Reddit users who are racists and/or misogynists. That's just the real world; you have to get past the obnoxious idiots and focus on what matters. The reason Ms. Pao was fired (let's be honest) is that she failed to make Reddit more profitable, attractive to users, and generally awesome. Not because she's a woman, not because there are people out there who don't want to see women succeed. Make money and all is forgiven. Pissing off large, meaningful chunks of your user base is not conducive to making money.
Nevermind misogyny etc., you're pointing to two incidents of unknown magnitude (because you lack the data internal to the company) among an unknown number of other things she's handled and you claim she's failed as a CEO? That is ridiculously uninformed.
The so-called misogynists (I'm of the opinion that much of the brutal words written about her were a large part tongue-in-cheek, deliberate over the top absurdity, not that that excuses it) are a part of reddit. You can't just say "I shouldn't have to deal with this".
Besides, these people have always been there and haven't caused any large scale problems, and they didn't when Ellen was appointed (which is when they should have started protesting, assuming you buy the misogyny charge). It was when some quite heavy handed restrictions started to be laid down with regards to freedom of speech that the uprising began to grow.
Personally, I'm glad she's gone, I much prefer reddit to be an extremely politically incorrect place. Take fatpeoplehate for instance - is it hurtful to fat people? Sure. But that subreddit can be easily blocked from your feed. Should someone have to do that? I think yes, they should, because if the new policy is to not hurt anyone's feelings, a whole bunch of content has to disappear.
Now that's just my opinion of how I want reddit to be - it is up to the owners of reddit to decide how they want it to be.
Was turning the front page of /r/all into a cesspool of hate the right way to protest her decisions? Maybe not, but honestly, what alternative is there that would have actually had any effect?
Besides, these people have always been there and haven't caused any large scale problems, and they didn't when Ellen was appointed (which is when they should have started protesting, assuming you buy the misogyny charge). It was when some quite heavy handed restrictions started to be laid down with regards to freedom of speech that the uprising began to grow.
Personally, I'm glad she's gone, I much prefer reddit to be an extremely politically incorrect place. Take fatpeoplehate for instance - is it hurtful to fat people? Sure. But that subreddit can be easily blocked from your feed. Should someone have to do that? I think yes, they should, because if the new policy is to not hurt anyone's feelings, a whole bunch of content has to disappear.
Now that's just my opinion of how I want reddit to be - it is up to the owners of reddit to decide how they want it to be.
Was turning the front page of /r/all into a cesspool of hate the right way to protest her decisions? Maybe not, but honestly, what alternative is there that would have actually had any effect?
I didn't mean to take a position on the misogyny part. I just meant leaving that question aside completely, the point was woefully incomplete.
You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of why FPH was banned - it wasn't because of offensive/hateful content like /r/coontown; it was because of active off-site harassment & brigading that the mods couldn't control.
You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of why FPH was banned - it wasn't because of offensive/hateful content like /r/coontown; it was because of active off-site harassment & brigading that the mods couldn't control.
> You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of why FPH was banned - it wasn't because of offensive/hateful content like /r/coontown; it was because of active off-site harassment & brigading that the mods couldn't control.
One of us has a misunderstanding on that and I'm not so sure it's me. I'm aware of the brigading claim, but not of any widespread evidence. And even if so, then how do you defend the inconsistent enforcement of that rule amongst other subreddits like /r/srs? If you're going to use a rule to close a sub, then by god enforce that rule consistently if you want people to take you seriously.
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Shit_Reddit_Says
One of us has a misunderstanding on that and I'm not so sure it's me. I'm aware of the brigading claim, but not of any widespread evidence. And even if so, then how do you defend the inconsistent enforcement of that rule amongst other subreddits like /r/srs? If you're going to use a rule to close a sub, then by god enforce that rule consistently if you want people to take you seriously.
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Shit_Reddit_Says
How they treated other subs is off topic for the question of why FPH was banned. Fact is, they banned it due to brigading and off site harassment etc. Whether you are personally convinced by the evidence kind of doesn't matter. They have no onus to share it all with you anyway.
If you were aware of the reasoning behind the ban - that it was because of alleged brigading, and not because of just hateful content, then that makes your post above (trying to make readers of your comment believe that it was arbitrary due to an offensive sub) quite deceptive.
As it happens they many times explicitly explained why SRS no longer meets the bar for banning under their current policy. Not that I need to defend reddit's decisions, nor automatically become on their side. Further, even without them explicitly saying why they did not ban SRS, it is not inconsistent - it is merely incomplete.
If you were aware of the reasoning behind the ban - that it was because of alleged brigading, and not because of just hateful content, then that makes your post above (trying to make readers of your comment believe that it was arbitrary due to an offensive sub) quite deceptive.
As it happens they many times explicitly explained why SRS no longer meets the bar for banning under their current policy. Not that I need to defend reddit's decisions, nor automatically become on their side. Further, even without them explicitly saying why they did not ban SRS, it is not inconsistent - it is merely incomplete.
> How they treated other subs is off topic for the question of why FPH was banned. Fact is, they banned it due to brigading and off site harassment etc. Whether you are personally convinced by the evidence kind of doesn't matter. They have no onus to share it all with you anyway.
No evidence was given, so you don't know either.
You are correct in that they are free to do as they choose with the website they own, but not taking into consideration your userbase's opinion of your actions seems like not an optimal recipe for success. Treat your users, who produce all your content and manage the majority of your business through voluntary moderation with zero respect, authoritatively decide what is "on or off topic for discussion", and see what happens.
> If you were aware of the reasoning behind the ban - that it was because of alleged brigading, and not because of just hateful content, then that makes your post above (trying to make readers of your comment believe that it was arbitrary due to an offensive sub) quite deceptive.
Oh I'm aware of the stated reasoning, and I:
a) reject it on the grounds that it is not consistently applied. If <subreddit x> is banned because of <rule y>, but that rule doesn't apply everywhere, then it wasn't actually banned because of <rule y>, because a "selectively enforced" rule is not really a rule. They're trying to use unemotional logical reason to explain their actions, but they are not acting logically.
b) don't believe them, in part because the statement that reddit is not intended to be a place for free speech, which is most definitely a change from the original culture and spirit.
> As it happens they many times explicitly explained why SRS no longer meets the bar for banning under their current policy.
I'm not at all aware of the details of this but I would like to learn - is this common knowledge?
> Further, even without them explicitly saying why they did not ban SRS, it is not inconsistent - it is merely incomplete.
I disagree. srs is infamous for brigading, and this behavior can be easily observed. So, if brigading is grounds for banning, then srs should be banned. If brigading is just one aspect of a complicated formula, then provide some background. Or, if you want to exercise your right (as the platform owner) to completely control all content, then simply state that outright. Or don't, and just continue to subtly move in that direction without discussing it, and see what happens, which I'd argue is exactly what has happened here. What happens is, your users (a significant portion at least) revolt, the story ends up being splashed through mainstream media including financial news, and before too long someone "resigns", "because their growth targets were inconsistent with management". (Do you believe that one also?)
No evidence was given, so you don't know either.
You are correct in that they are free to do as they choose with the website they own, but not taking into consideration your userbase's opinion of your actions seems like not an optimal recipe for success. Treat your users, who produce all your content and manage the majority of your business through voluntary moderation with zero respect, authoritatively decide what is "on or off topic for discussion", and see what happens.
> If you were aware of the reasoning behind the ban - that it was because of alleged brigading, and not because of just hateful content, then that makes your post above (trying to make readers of your comment believe that it was arbitrary due to an offensive sub) quite deceptive.
Oh I'm aware of the stated reasoning, and I:
a) reject it on the grounds that it is not consistently applied. If <subreddit x> is banned because of <rule y>, but that rule doesn't apply everywhere, then it wasn't actually banned because of <rule y>, because a "selectively enforced" rule is not really a rule. They're trying to use unemotional logical reason to explain their actions, but they are not acting logically.
b) don't believe them, in part because the statement that reddit is not intended to be a place for free speech, which is most definitely a change from the original culture and spirit.
> As it happens they many times explicitly explained why SRS no longer meets the bar for banning under their current policy.
I'm not at all aware of the details of this but I would like to learn - is this common knowledge?
> Further, even without them explicitly saying why they did not ban SRS, it is not inconsistent - it is merely incomplete.
I disagree. srs is infamous for brigading, and this behavior can be easily observed. So, if brigading is grounds for banning, then srs should be banned. If brigading is just one aspect of a complicated formula, then provide some background. Or, if you want to exercise your right (as the platform owner) to completely control all content, then simply state that outright. Or don't, and just continue to subtly move in that direction without discussing it, and see what happens, which I'd argue is exactly what has happened here. What happens is, your users (a significant portion at least) revolt, the story ends up being splashed through mainstream media including financial news, and before too long someone "resigns", "because their growth targets were inconsistent with management". (Do you believe that one also?)
> I'm not at all aware of the details of this but I would like to learn - is this common knowledge?
Yes, see the 3rd FAQ of the announcement post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/remov...
> I disagree. srs is infamous for brigading, and this behavior can be easily observed. So, if brigading is grounds for banning, then srs should be banned. If brigading is just one aspect of a complicated formula, then provide some background.
See the 2nd FAQ
> the statement that reddit is not intended to be a place for free speech,
Where did you read that? From the post above, they're trying to carefully balance offsite harassment & free speech and acknowledge that this is hard. Incidentally note that they said it's a change to their management policy, not "haha gotcha we were never free speech". Not that you have or should expect free speech on reddit anyway etc.
Yes, see the 3rd FAQ of the announcement post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/remov...
> I disagree. srs is infamous for brigading, and this behavior can be easily observed. So, if brigading is grounds for banning, then srs should be banned. If brigading is just one aspect of a complicated formula, then provide some background.
See the 2nd FAQ
> the statement that reddit is not intended to be a place for free speech,
Where did you read that? From the post above, they're trying to carefully balance offsite harassment & free speech and acknowledge that this is hard. Incidentally note that they said it's a change to their management policy, not "haha gotcha we were never free speech". Not that you have or should expect free speech on reddit anyway etc.
>> I'm not at all aware of the details of this but I would like to learn - is this common knowledge?
> Yes, see the 3rd FAQ of the announcement post:
Today we are removing five subreddits that break our reddit rules based on their harassment of individuals. If a subreddit has been banned for harassment, you will see that in the ban notice. The only banned subreddit with more than 5,000 subscribers is r/fatpeoplehate[2].
Harassment vs Brigading: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/remov...
"When we are using the word "harass", we're not talking about "being annoying" or vote manipulation or anything. We're talking about men and women whose lives are being affected and worry for their safety every day, because people from a certain community on reddit have decided to actually threaten them, online and off, every day. When you've had to talk to as many victims of it as we have, you'd understand that a brigade from one subreddit to another is miles away from the harassment we don't want being generated on our site."
"We're talking about men and women whose lives are being affected" Agreed.
"worry for their safety every day" Oh please.
"because people from a certain community on reddit have decided to actually threaten them, online and off, every day." Laughably, transparently false. This sounds like the thruthiness that comes from the minds of MBA's and is accepted (in public discourse) on wall street, but it does go over so well on reddit.
Look, if they want to ban "harassment", which I don't argue that fph was at least in some way, then just state the facts and ban it, it's not so hard. It is the completely unnecessary lying that fired up the outrage, imho. Just say "poking fun at fat people is malicious and we're no longer allowing it. Sorry.", and I don't think there would have been a shitstorm.
>> I disagree. srs is infamous for brigading, and this behavior can be easily observed. So, if brigading is grounds for banning, then srs should be banned. If brigading is just one aspect of a complicated formula, then provide some background.
> See the 2nd FAQ
It is not easy to balance these values, especially as the Internet evolves. We are learning and hopefully improving as we move forward. We want to be open about our involvement: We will ban subreddits that allow their communities to use the subreddit as a platform to harass[1] individuals when moderators don’t take action. We’re banning behavior, not ideas.
That in no way excuses srs. As far as I understand, brigading is explicitly a bannable offense. srs brigades. srs has not been banned. Once again, inconsistentcy & dishonesty leads to mistrust and anger.
>> the statement that reddit is not intended to be a place for free speech,
> Where did you read that? From the post above, they're trying to carefully balance offsite harassment & free speech and acknowledge that this is hard. Incidentally note that they said it's a change to their management policy, not "haha gotcha we were never free speech".
http://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-ceo-ellen-pao-its-not-...
"It's not our site's goal to be a completely free-speech platform. We want to be a safe platform and we want to be a platform that also protects privacy at the same time."
Now, combine that with some of the interesting commentary on "safe spaces" that we see coming out of our institutions of higher learning on a regular basis, and draw your own conclusions as to whether the uprising was based on pure unsubstantiated paranoia or not.
> Not that you have or should expect free speech on reddit anyway etc.
As I said before: force a culture on your users and observe the result. It's certainly the right of reddit's owners, but I don't think they'll like the result. My opinion seems to be fairly consistent with the actions and words of the new (old) management, at least so far.
EDIT: on SRS specifically:
https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/remov...
"May I ask why /r/shitredditsays[1] has not been banned despite being caught multiple times sending death threats and doxing, and even admitting to doing these things? I think most people would be placated if there were just some consistency in how the rules are applied."
"Sure. We did not ban SRS because the behavior you're referring to, while definitely falling into our current definition of "harassment," happened long ago. We don't put policy into place in order to retroactively ban backlogged behavior. If their harassment becomes a problem again, we will revisit that decision, but until that happens this is where we're at."
Which is a blatant lie, as everyone knows. Again, if you want to selectively ban subreddits, just do it and say why you are doing it, I really think the backlash would be relatively minor, why the compulsive lying?
Today we are removing five subreddits that break our reddit rules based on their harassment of individuals. If a subreddit has been banned for harassment, you will see that in the ban notice. The only banned subreddit with more than 5,000 subscribers is r/fatpeoplehate[2].
Harassment vs Brigading: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/remov...
"When we are using the word "harass", we're not talking about "being annoying" or vote manipulation or anything. We're talking about men and women whose lives are being affected and worry for their safety every day, because people from a certain community on reddit have decided to actually threaten them, online and off, every day. When you've had to talk to as many victims of it as we have, you'd understand that a brigade from one subreddit to another is miles away from the harassment we don't want being generated on our site."
"We're talking about men and women whose lives are being affected" Agreed.
"worry for their safety every day" Oh please.
"because people from a certain community on reddit have decided to actually threaten them, online and off, every day." Laughably, transparently false. This sounds like the thruthiness that comes from the minds of MBA's and is accepted (in public discourse) on wall street, but it does go over so well on reddit.
Look, if they want to ban "harassment", which I don't argue that fph was at least in some way, then just state the facts and ban it, it's not so hard. It is the completely unnecessary lying that fired up the outrage, imho. Just say "poking fun at fat people is malicious and we're no longer allowing it. Sorry.", and I don't think there would have been a shitstorm.
>> I disagree. srs is infamous for brigading, and this behavior can be easily observed. So, if brigading is grounds for banning, then srs should be banned. If brigading is just one aspect of a complicated formula, then provide some background.
> See the 2nd FAQ
It is not easy to balance these values, especially as the Internet evolves. We are learning and hopefully improving as we move forward. We want to be open about our involvement: We will ban subreddits that allow their communities to use the subreddit as a platform to harass[1] individuals when moderators don’t take action. We’re banning behavior, not ideas.
That in no way excuses srs. As far as I understand, brigading is explicitly a bannable offense. srs brigades. srs has not been banned. Once again, inconsistentcy & dishonesty leads to mistrust and anger.
>> the statement that reddit is not intended to be a place for free speech,
> Where did you read that? From the post above, they're trying to carefully balance offsite harassment & free speech and acknowledge that this is hard. Incidentally note that they said it's a change to their management policy, not "haha gotcha we were never free speech".
http://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-ceo-ellen-pao-its-not-...
"It's not our site's goal to be a completely free-speech platform. We want to be a safe platform and we want to be a platform that also protects privacy at the same time."
Now, combine that with some of the interesting commentary on "safe spaces" that we see coming out of our institutions of higher learning on a regular basis, and draw your own conclusions as to whether the uprising was based on pure unsubstantiated paranoia or not.
> Not that you have or should expect free speech on reddit anyway etc.
As I said before: force a culture on your users and observe the result. It's certainly the right of reddit's owners, but I don't think they'll like the result. My opinion seems to be fairly consistent with the actions and words of the new (old) management, at least so far.
EDIT: on SRS specifically:
https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/remov...
"May I ask why /r/shitredditsays[1] has not been banned despite being caught multiple times sending death threats and doxing, and even admitting to doing these things? I think most people would be placated if there were just some consistency in how the rules are applied."
"Sure. We did not ban SRS because the behavior you're referring to, while definitely falling into our current definition of "harassment," happened long ago. We don't put policy into place in order to retroactively ban backlogged behavior. If their harassment becomes a problem again, we will revisit that decision, but until that happens this is where we're at."
Which is a blatant lie, as everyone knows. Again, if you want to selectively ban subreddits, just do it and say why you are doing it, I really think the backlash would be relatively minor, why the compulsive lying?
So when I said FAQ I was referring to the FAQ links at the bottom, which deal explicitly with SRS (see also https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3cxedn/i_am_steve_huf...) and with brigading vs harassment. By FAQ I did not mean "paragraph".
> Which is a blatant lie, as everyone knows.
I don't know that, and upon further inspection it is not obviously a lie, and is actually pretty reasonable. How did you determine that everyone knows this?
> Which is a blatant lie, as everyone knows.
I don't know that, and upon further inspection it is not obviously a lie, and is actually pretty reasonable. How did you determine that everyone knows this?
Just because you don't have internal proprietary data doesn't mean you cant have a rational opinion on the matter. That is a ridiculous standard. The Victoria thing was a monumental cluster fuck in one of the most outward facing facets of the company.
Okay, and how many wins did Pao have? In your "wins and fuckups" columns that you surely made prior to the post, "fuckups" includes the Victoria thing and whatever else. What is in your "wins" column (internal company initiatives, key hires, process changes, etc.) that were appropriately weighed in order to come to your rational opinion that she has overall failed as a CEO?
Unless your assertion is that all of her wins were kept secret, and the public record shouldn't be trusted, they are very few.
Some hires and the chilling effects thing are maybe the biggest unambiguous positive developments. The subreddit banning and the salary negotiations thing were received with mixed opinion, but even if you agree with what was banned, the handling of it was questionable and seemed very rushed.
And then there was last week, which derailed the site over a weekend and made national news outlets for the whole week. A lot of details about internal dealings came to light, and none of them particularly painted reddit in a good light. There is no plausible way the amount of good shes done in the last 10-12 months outweighed the massive damage that was inflicted.
It is also worth noting that the people who do have access to a lot of internal information about the inner workings of reddit 'mutually' agreed that she shouldn't be the CEO. Undoubtedly the backlash -- some of it misguided -- played into this, but frankly a large part of being the CEO of a community-based site is PR.
Some hires and the chilling effects thing are maybe the biggest unambiguous positive developments. The subreddit banning and the salary negotiations thing were received with mixed opinion, but even if you agree with what was banned, the handling of it was questionable and seemed very rushed.
And then there was last week, which derailed the site over a weekend and made national news outlets for the whole week. A lot of details about internal dealings came to light, and none of them particularly painted reddit in a good light. There is no plausible way the amount of good shes done in the last 10-12 months outweighed the massive damage that was inflicted.
It is also worth noting that the people who do have access to a lot of internal information about the inner workings of reddit 'mutually' agreed that she shouldn't be the CEO. Undoubtedly the backlash -- some of it misguided -- played into this, but frankly a large part of being the CEO of a community-based site is PR.
Yes, most of her wins were surely kept internal because most company things are not made public as a matter of course.
No plausible way the day to day internal changes / hirings / firings that you are not privy to have had a balancing effect on this? What was your methodology in assessing the damage that the blackout caused to reddit that you used to measure against the good she could have plausibly caused in order to form your rational opinion? A cursory look at https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/about/traffic does not seem to indicate any lasting impact.
It is not worth noting that random employees (actually, not random: ones who' have enough of an axe to grind that they'll risk their job to break NDA) think a CEO is bad. That is the case at almost every company, small and large. Find me one where you can't find 2 employees that agree there should be a different CEO etc.
Sorry but we are looking at it from a necessarily uninformed outsider's perspective so we can't possibly have a meaningful opinion on whether she was an effective CEO.
No plausible way the day to day internal changes / hirings / firings that you are not privy to have had a balancing effect on this? What was your methodology in assessing the damage that the blackout caused to reddit that you used to measure against the good she could have plausibly caused in order to form your rational opinion? A cursory look at https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/about/traffic does not seem to indicate any lasting impact.
It is not worth noting that random employees (actually, not random: ones who' have enough of an axe to grind that they'll risk their job to break NDA) think a CEO is bad. That is the case at almost every company, small and large. Find me one where you can't find 2 employees that agree there should be a different CEO etc.
Sorry but we are looking at it from a necessarily uninformed outsider's perspective so we can't possibly have a meaningful opinion on whether she was an effective CEO.
So your entire point is that there is nothing a CEO can do, ever, that would let an outsider form an opinion on how effective they are.
And even if I was an employee; well there are always disgruntled employees, their opinion isn't reasonable either.
These are absurd arguments. By the same logic, the CEO of whole foods could hold a press conference and just go on a racist, hateful rant, and I couldn't possibly have a meaningful opinion on their effectiveness as a CEO.
In any event, the people I meant who did have the internal data weren't employees, I meant their board of directors.
And is it possible that a CEO is really awesome, but really really unlucky, and it just _looks_ like they are bad at their job outwardly? Sure, there is some non-zero chance of this; much like there is some non-zero chance of damn near anything.
Perfect information is an impossible ideal; arguing that a rational opinion is impossible regardless of any circumstance since we don't have access to all the information which exists would imply that no person can have a rational opinion about anything, ever.
And even if I was an employee; well there are always disgruntled employees, their opinion isn't reasonable either.
These are absurd arguments. By the same logic, the CEO of whole foods could hold a press conference and just go on a racist, hateful rant, and I couldn't possibly have a meaningful opinion on their effectiveness as a CEO.
In any event, the people I meant who did have the internal data weren't employees, I meant their board of directors.
And is it possible that a CEO is really awesome, but really really unlucky, and it just _looks_ like they are bad at their job outwardly? Sure, there is some non-zero chance of this; much like there is some non-zero chance of damn near anything.
Perfect information is an impossible ideal; arguing that a rational opinion is impossible regardless of any circumstance since we don't have access to all the information which exists would imply that no person can have a rational opinion about anything, ever.
Pretty much, yes - as much as it feels super tingly great inside to feel like you've judged the career effectiveness of that person you don't know, you really don't have much info at all, and this doesn't fall into the extreme argument of "while you know 99% of the things, you technically don't know 100%, so it's unknowable - checkmate!"
And yes, literally it is true that the CEO of whole foods could go on a huge racist rant and you could not have a meaningful opinion on their effectiveness as CEO. Or rather, what you want to say is "in this extreme example, this CEO is clearly ineffective", but we know of morally shitty CEOs who drive huge company growth & profits and are therefore effective CEOs.
Anyway, can you show your work that you were referring to behind your analysis of the magnitude of the damage that the recent reddit blackout did?
And yes, literally it is true that the CEO of whole foods could go on a huge racist rant and you could not have a meaningful opinion on their effectiveness as CEO. Or rather, what you want to say is "in this extreme example, this CEO is clearly ineffective", but we know of morally shitty CEOs who drive huge company growth & profits and are therefore effective CEOs.
Anyway, can you show your work that you were referring to behind your analysis of the magnitude of the damage that the recent reddit blackout did?
The traffic log you linked does show significant hits, and a very large numbers of users claimed to have de-whitelisted reddit from adblock. Terms like 'voat' and 'reddit alternative' skyrocketed in trends. I don't think this is the 'digg moment' or anything, and I doubt voat exists for any length of time, but I very much doubt investors are looking at these trends and doubting the magnitude of the damage. Reddit is only profitable if it retains users, especially if they disable ad block and want to buy 'gold'.
More substantially, if all AMA teams really are going to be running the show without official reddit support, this cuts in a couple of ways. It shows a maintained lack of faith in reddit from the moderators, and it also is going to make the logistics of AMAs more difficult. The AMAs are unique content which is a substantial draw of new users, where a ton of the work was already done by volunteers. The logistical strain is going to make for less or worse content, pick your poison. High profile guests, especially those not technically savvy, are less likely to participate without admin support being available.
Strategically, reddit almost certainly wants to be involved in this -- they want to be tightly coupled, enough that the group can't spin off their own version.
I don't think this damage is irreparable, but I do think it's going to take substantial work to fix. And I mean, don't take that from me, take it from them -- https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cbo4m/we_ap....
More substantially, if all AMA teams really are going to be running the show without official reddit support, this cuts in a couple of ways. It shows a maintained lack of faith in reddit from the moderators, and it also is going to make the logistics of AMAs more difficult. The AMAs are unique content which is a substantial draw of new users, where a ton of the work was already done by volunteers. The logistical strain is going to make for less or worse content, pick your poison. High profile guests, especially those not technically savvy, are less likely to participate without admin support being available.
Strategically, reddit almost certainly wants to be involved in this -- they want to be tightly coupled, enough that the group can't spin off their own version.
I don't think this damage is irreparable, but I do think it's going to take substantial work to fix. And I mean, don't take that from me, take it from them -- https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cbo4m/we_ap....
If you know anything about the drama surrounding her, you know she's at least an accessory to some extremely shady business dealings. Any defense of her character falls into the same defense strategies as for W Bush. Either she is of (very) questionable moral character, or she is a somewhat decent, but hopelessly ill-fortuned dupe. In either case, hardly good qualifications for being a CEO.
> The Victoria thing was a monumental cluster fuck in one of the most outward facing facets of the company.
The main issue (no one to coordinate AMAs) was dealt with in a matter of hours without serious consequences. The "monumental cluster fuck" image is due to hundreds of people with an axe to grind who piled up on top it, mostly with unrelated "anti-SJW" complaints.
The main issue (no one to coordinate AMAs) was dealt with in a matter of hours without serious consequences. The "monumental cluster fuck" image is due to hundreds of people with an axe to grind who piled up on top it, mostly with unrelated "anti-SJW" complaints.
Is disputing her failure a serious position? Regardless of whether or not they are the community reddit wants the company angered its moderators enough to trigger something that ended up being in the news and very visible even to those that use reddit without ever viewing comments.
I personally think the criticism directed her way was warranted (as was that directed at Alexis, especially after his first responses), though I definitely don't think it should have taken the form it sometimes did (misogynist, racist, overly personal, overly reactive, etc).
I think the pseudo-anonymity of the Internet (though it has many positive aspects in other contexts) is wreaking havoc on our ability to debate some topics because you wind up with a situation where many people get upset about a legitimate grievance and some overly troll-y subset of those people goes overboard with their backlash and then the whole issue ends up in this very unfortunately binary "us versus them" where rational but legitimately upset people get painted with the same brush as the vocal minority of troll-y jerkwads (or alternately, they have to just excuse themselves from the debate to avoid being painted with that brush).
eg. "Gamergate" (there is an inescapable core truth to the fact that game journalism is broken, perhaps irreparably so, that got completely lost in all of the personal-level misogynistic bullshit) and this reddit situation where the community had every right to be upset at the recent moves they have been making (though to reiterate, I think some forms of the backlash were, as reddit's announcement stated, sickening).
I think the pseudo-anonymity of the Internet (though it has many positive aspects in other contexts) is wreaking havoc on our ability to debate some topics because you wind up with a situation where many people get upset about a legitimate grievance and some overly troll-y subset of those people goes overboard with their backlash and then the whole issue ends up in this very unfortunately binary "us versus them" where rational but legitimately upset people get painted with the same brush as the vocal minority of troll-y jerkwads (or alternately, they have to just excuse themselves from the debate to avoid being painted with that brush).
eg. "Gamergate" (there is an inescapable core truth to the fact that game journalism is broken, perhaps irreparably so, that got completely lost in all of the personal-level misogynistic bullshit) and this reddit situation where the community had every right to be upset at the recent moves they have been making (though to reiterate, I think some forms of the backlash were, as reddit's announcement stated, sickening).
I don't know if she was a bad leader or not.
My big concern is this populist approach to firing people. Enough people don't like a company officer? Cobble a "movement" and generate enough controversy to force them to step down.
I think unless they egregiously violate company policy or violate the law or do something which would bring damage to a company it should be up to the company to direct the fate of an officer... Not popular sentiment.
Maybe she deserved to be fired, maybe she was a terrible officer. Let the company make that decision. I dont like tho mob rule aspect to her stepping down.
My big concern is this populist approach to firing people. Enough people don't like a company officer? Cobble a "movement" and generate enough controversy to force them to step down.
I think unless they egregiously violate company policy or violate the law or do something which would bring damage to a company it should be up to the company to direct the fate of an officer... Not popular sentiment.
Maybe she deserved to be fired, maybe she was a terrible officer. Let the company make that decision. I dont like tho mob rule aspect to her stepping down.
If you live by the public opinion, you die by the public opinion.
That's the unfortunate reality of being a leader. It would be nice if it weren't so but the world is very far from nice.
Consequences for your actions are something only non-leaders should have to deal with...
If she weren't a woman, I would be tempted to say it's almost . . .
It's almost like she just sucked at her job and the public backlash and getting fired were both predictable consequences of that fact.
It's almost like she just sucked at her job and the public backlash and getting fired were both predictable consequences of that fact.
Let's say she sucked at her job. Let the org fire her. These actions were the result of thought that they needed to heed public opinion.
As if officers need to walk on eggshells. What should matter ate results rather than dictated by the winds of public opinion.
I wish the board, management, etc. in these situations would who resolve and say, no, sorry, this is our choice, we stand by it. But no, we see them capitulate to public opinion.
Sometimes that opinion does coincide with"the right thing to do" but let the company execute the right thing. Don't let the mob become your upper management.
As if officers need to walk on eggshells. What should matter ate results rather than dictated by the winds of public opinion.
I wish the board, management, etc. in these situations would who resolve and say, no, sorry, this is our choice, we stand by it. But no, we see them capitulate to public opinion.
Sometimes that opinion does coincide with"the right thing to do" but let the company execute the right thing. Don't let the mob become your upper management.
Yes, the board could have ignored users' opinions. But users weren't just complaining about Ms. Pao. They were complaining about the policy changes ("We ban behavior, not ideas.") that she was championing. If those policy changes continue under new management, I suspect that many Reddit users will vote with their "feet". To Voat or whatever. And given that Reddit sells users' eyeballs, that will reduce revenues.
#1 rule in tech: listen to your users.
Wow, Steve Jobs is forgotten so soon?
There is a difference between doing what your users tell you to do, and listening to them.
> “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” -H. Ford
Users present solutions to their problems, when you listen you discover what their problem actually is. In the above case, faster more reliable transportation.
edit: Jobs was a cofounder of what is(or close to) the most profitable company in the world. He saved the company from bankruptcy and is arguably the best quality control engineer ever. Rules always have exceptions but thinking you are the exception often helps to prove the rule.
> “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” -H. Ford
Users present solutions to their problems, when you listen you discover what their problem actually is. In the above case, faster more reliable transportation.
edit: Jobs was a cofounder of what is(or close to) the most profitable company in the world. He saved the company from bankruptcy and is arguably the best quality control engineer ever. Rules always have exceptions but thinking you are the exception often helps to prove the rule.
[deleted]
Well, this kind of looks like an egregious violation of company policy. It looks like she punished an employee for giving an interview to a famous minority politician. There has to be some company policy against retaliation on political basis.
Regarding "mob rule" this is a free country and people have a choice which website to read and to contribute to. If people want to go away from reddit that is their choice. The company that owns reddit does not need to follow reddit user wishes, but they have to face the distinct possibility that those users will leave and the consequences thereof.
You can call it mob rule, but other's can call it the matter of ordinary people exercising free choice.
Regarding "mob rule" this is a free country and people have a choice which website to read and to contribute to. If people want to go away from reddit that is their choice. The company that owns reddit does not need to follow reddit user wishes, but they have to face the distinct possibility that those users will leave and the consequences thereof.
You can call it mob rule, but other's can call it the matter of ordinary people exercising free choice.
> Maybe she deserved to be fired, maybe she was a terrible officer. Let the company make that decision. I dont like tho mob rule aspect to her stepping down.
Her job was to preside over that mob. And apparently to monetize it. Pissing off that mob means she failed at her job.
In addition, not understanding that you are firing a key employee shows a dramatic level of ignorance. Reddit has so few employees that even an adequate CEO should know what every single employee is doing. This is just basic Management 101--"Know What Your People Do" or its corollary "Never Piss Off A Secretary" aka "Know Who Has The Real Power In Your Company".
Finally, from her attempt at PR positioning you get headlines like this: "It’s Silicon Valley 2, Ellen Pao 0: Fighter of Sexism Is Out at Reddit". Really? "Fighter of sexism". Um, she fired a woman, you know? And her behavior at Kleiner was far from exemplary. Her case for sexism would have been a whole lot stronger if she hadn't appeared to be sleeping her way up the corporate chain.
Overall, the problem seems to be the same tone-deafness as so many at this level of privilege: "The rules don't apply to me. How dare these plebeians attempt to make the rules apply to me!"
Her job was to preside over that mob. And apparently to monetize it. Pissing off that mob means she failed at her job.
In addition, not understanding that you are firing a key employee shows a dramatic level of ignorance. Reddit has so few employees that even an adequate CEO should know what every single employee is doing. This is just basic Management 101--"Know What Your People Do" or its corollary "Never Piss Off A Secretary" aka "Know Who Has The Real Power In Your Company".
Finally, from her attempt at PR positioning you get headlines like this: "It’s Silicon Valley 2, Ellen Pao 0: Fighter of Sexism Is Out at Reddit". Really? "Fighter of sexism". Um, she fired a woman, you know? And her behavior at Kleiner was far from exemplary. Her case for sexism would have been a whole lot stronger if she hadn't appeared to be sleeping her way up the corporate chain.
Overall, the problem seems to be the same tone-deafness as so many at this level of privilege: "The rules don't apply to me. How dare these plebeians attempt to make the rules apply to me!"
Yeah NYT trying to make reddit look like a ally of sexism is a new low for them.
That's all good -fine. If she did wrong, let the company deal with it. They hired her. But here she's been left out to dry. Totally different from Toyota where an executive smuggled prescription drugs into Japan[1] and the company stood by her --she stepped down once she understood the implications of her transgression in the eyes of Japanese law.
But this is not the company firing her --it's the internet firing her. I don't like this approach at all. management by popular opinion is not good. Imagine managing a professional sports team by popular vote --it'd be nuts.
[1]http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/19/us-toyota-executiv...
But this is not the company firing her --it's the internet firing her. I don't like this approach at all. management by popular opinion is not good. Imagine managing a professional sports team by popular vote --it'd be nuts.
[1]http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/19/us-toyota-executiv...
The Reddit users are their customers. If a board has a CEO that is getting a lot of the firms customers upset (in revolt), then the board has to step in to preserve the company. Remember, they had Digg as an example of what can happen when highly mobile customers leave.
So far as an example from the automotive industry, look at Rick Wagoner from General Motors. He lost the firm $82 billion and 90% of its market capitalization while he was CEO. And the board did nothing to correct this. With their capital gone, loss of confidence by the market, they were forced into bankruptcy.
So far as an example from the automotive industry, look at Rick Wagoner from General Motors. He lost the firm $82 billion and 90% of its market capitalization while he was CEO. And the board did nothing to correct this. With their capital gone, loss of confidence by the market, they were forced into bankruptcy.
> Imagine managing a professional sports team by popular vote --it'd be nuts.
That's a really bad example to cite because managers and coaches quite often do get fired when the fans start getting too angry.
That's a really bad example to cite because managers and coaches quite often do get fired when the fans start getting too angry.
You mean the same mob rule that HN seemed to support to make sure Brandon Eich lost his CEO position?
Yes, the same one. I don't have to agree with him or Ms Pao. But I cannot agree with popular putsches approach to policy. As Mr Schaubler recently said, there are rules, meaning there are processes.
But we have seen this play out many many times. Someone is accused --accused, not proven.. and the slightest whiff the company drops the person like a bad contagion. And, so now people expect this from companies. Complain enough and have someone fired. Someone said something crass while drunk 'aha!' fire them, behavior unbecoming. As if these people, unlike us, are not human and can't err. We're scared to see our ugliness in others. Oh the terrible reminder of our frailties! OMG, they were caught in a sting operation and had a rendezvous in a bathroom with a stranger! [Do the private sex lives of executives really matter? Oh but public perception, gasp!]
I don't think companies and organizations should manage by popular opinion. No one will be willing to make bold choices for fear of upsetting some base of people.
If an officers' views are contrary to the official org position, or behavior was egregious or against the law, then sure. If the organizational action simply coincides with popular opinion, then fine --but don't take action _just_ because of popular opinion --that's, to me, not right and gives away control to the whims of the moment.
But we have seen this play out many many times. Someone is accused --accused, not proven.. and the slightest whiff the company drops the person like a bad contagion. And, so now people expect this from companies. Complain enough and have someone fired. Someone said something crass while drunk 'aha!' fire them, behavior unbecoming. As if these people, unlike us, are not human and can't err. We're scared to see our ugliness in others. Oh the terrible reminder of our frailties! OMG, they were caught in a sting operation and had a rendezvous in a bathroom with a stranger! [Do the private sex lives of executives really matter? Oh but public perception, gasp!]
I don't think companies and organizations should manage by popular opinion. No one will be willing to make bold choices for fear of upsetting some base of people.
If an officers' views are contrary to the official org position, or behavior was egregious or against the law, then sure. If the organizational action simply coincides with popular opinion, then fine --but don't take action _just_ because of popular opinion --that's, to me, not right and gives away control to the whims of the moment.
> My big concern is this populist approach to firing people. Enough people don't like a company officer? Cobble a "movement" and generate enough controversy to force them to step down.
I think the line needs to be drawn more clearly than that, because we should have populist control over companies.
I'm more concerned about companies that really impact us, for example huge banks, energy conglomerates, people behind the TPP and TiSA.
But when the leader of a company who publishes the words of its' customers - a complex relationship, indeed - tries to curb some of the harmful speech of those customers, I don't think it's a reasonable populist standard to say that people supporting that speech can oppose it.
I think the line needs to be drawn more clearly than that, because we should have populist control over companies.
I'm more concerned about companies that really impact us, for example huge banks, energy conglomerates, people behind the TPP and TiSA.
But when the leader of a company who publishes the words of its' customers - a complex relationship, indeed - tries to curb some of the harmful speech of those customers, I don't think it's a reasonable populist standard to say that people supporting that speech can oppose it.
> I think this was the right thing to do from a PR perspective.
I think this was the right thing to do from a product perspective. Pao didn't really know how to use the site, and didn't ever particularly like the users. I don't know if Huffman likes the users, but one would assume that he would at least know how to use the site he helped build :)
I think this was the right thing to do from a product perspective. Pao didn't really know how to use the site, and didn't ever particularly like the users. I don't know if Huffman likes the users, but one would assume that he would at least know how to use the site he helped build :)
Um, proof? The fact that she's been actually active on the site under her own account shows that clearly she knows how to use the site, so that argument alone is moot. I don't know how you can prove she didn't like the users unless she straight up said that.
https://np.reddit.com/r/FaithInHumanity/comments/39ee4c/char...
She tried to share a link to a private message. That's the equivalent of my mom emailing me and saying, "Here's the picture - c:\\user\desktop\pic.jpg" - it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how the site works.
Then everyone who replied was shadowbanned and every post was deleted. So no, she literally didn't know how to use the site.
She tried to share a link to a private message. That's the equivalent of my mom emailing me and saying, "Here's the picture - c:\\user\desktop\pic.jpg" - it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how the site works.
Then everyone who replied was shadowbanned and every post was deleted. So no, she literally didn't know how to use the site.
https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cucye/an_ol...
The new CEO doesn't know how to make lists. Is he going to catch shit for it?
The new CEO doesn't know how to make lists. Is he going to catch shit for it?
I'll hazard a 'yes' here, based on the comments (see top comment, below). In the interest of fairness, admins can see the private links, so Pao may have just posted to the wrong Reddit, rather than doing something ridiculous (though it would look that way to anyone not familiar with admin powers).
===
kciuq1 1758 points 3 hours ago Maybe the first priority is to learn how reddit works.
===
kciuq1 1758 points 3 hours ago Maybe the first priority is to learn how reddit works.
He should
Don't you mean, he should be fired, because he is the wrong person for the product, because he literally does not know how to use the site?
If he still can't use the product six months from now and the users are revolting, then yes he should be fired
He made the product! He can't use the product ten years later!
He hasn't used the product in nine years. Wouldn't you say it's possible they've changed the formatting in those nine years?
vehementi(1)
No, she intended to post something in an admin sub and didn't. https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cbo4m/we_ap...
And they've officially denied shadowbanning anyone in that thread.
And they've officially denied shadowbanning anyone in that thread.
>Then everyone who replied was shadowbanned
Do you have any proof of this? That seems highly unlikely.
Do you have any proof of this? That seems highly unlikely.
> Then everyone who replied was shadowbanned
Can you cite something on this? I really doubt it's true, but if true it's devastating.
Can you cite something on this? I really doubt it's true, but if true it's devastating.
I'm curious about a few things, like just how many of the people on reddit making the noise are actually literally children. Probably quite a lot!
Did the "community" make death threats? I didn't see any, and I don't think the average redditor would approve those. There will be death threats in almost any large-scale, heated discussion. The typical upvoted comments actually consisted of valid criticism against Pao and reddit's management.
I didn't really follow this subject, but I saw a lot of crude and frankly pretty racist joke images voted up to the front page.
I didn't see any racism, unless you consider characterizing her as communist dictator Mao Zedong to be racism?
"There will be death threats in almost any large-scale, heated discussion."
Dude, seriously. And I'm pretty sure "dude" is appropriate here: no, no there will not be death threats in any large scale discussion. Not among adults at least. Little kids fight all the time but when they grow up that's called "assault and battery". Maybe in your world little kids threaten to kill each other over the Internet all the time, but when they grow up that's called a "death threat". Maybe the problem here is that society has more tolerance for that sh*t in children, which I suppose can cause some confusion when they start interacting with the Real World.
Dude, seriously. And I'm pretty sure "dude" is appropriate here: no, no there will not be death threats in any large scale discussion. Not among adults at least. Little kids fight all the time but when they grow up that's called "assault and battery". Maybe in your world little kids threaten to kill each other over the Internet all the time, but when they grow up that's called a "death threat". Maybe the problem here is that society has more tolerance for that sh*t in children, which I suppose can cause some confusion when they start interacting with the Real World.
So there will not be, but there was?
It's my estimation that if there are hundreds of thousands of anonymous or pseudonymous discussion comments it's very likely that a few individuals will a make death threat (which are likely not intended to be taken seriously). My point is that stating that death threats were made is not particularly interesting, as that's not a rare occurrence when we're talking about very large number of comments by very large number of people, some of which are anonymous or pseudonymous.
"Dude, seriously. And I'm pretty sure "dude" is appropriate here:"
Could you refrain from sexist comments like that?
It's my estimation that if there are hundreds of thousands of anonymous or pseudonymous discussion comments it's very likely that a few individuals will a make death threat (which are likely not intended to be taken seriously). My point is that stating that death threats were made is not particularly interesting, as that's not a rare occurrence when we're talking about very large number of comments by very large number of people, some of which are anonymous or pseudonymous.
"Dude, seriously. And I'm pretty sure "dude" is appropriate here:"
Could you refrain from sexist comments like that?
[deleted]
That really is the case. Completely asinine, but if you are a public figure, the masses can be shockingly awful. There is an interesting article where Penn and Teller compare their rather large influx of death threats with Richard Dawkins[1], and from what I know, pretty much anybody in the public eye has to deal with this.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/10836833/Penn-and...
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/10836833/Penn-and...
Just because it is true doesn't mean we need to take it as the new normal.
Link to full statement:
https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cucye/an_ol...
It is a good read.
https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cucye/an_ol...
It is a good read.
Redit isn't a community. It's a bunch of communities. Most of them, I more or less dislike, for various overlapping sets of reasons. But I support freedom of speech. Everyone is free to ignore whatever they dislike.
Also, in such communities, strong anonymity is prudent. It does protect griefers from consequences, I admit. But more importantly, it protects all users from meatspace risks.
Edit: This is an old discussion. Especially if one replaces "Redit" with "Usenet".
Also, in such communities, strong anonymity is prudent. It does protect griefers from consequences, I admit. But more importantly, it protects all users from meatspace risks.
Edit: This is an old discussion. Especially if one replaces "Redit" with "Usenet".
The childish and aggressive level of communication on Reddit led me to discover Hacker News while in search of quality and informed discussion. Admittedly I also use Reddit but more and more it has become a curiosity to see how people act when they think no one will know it's them. Occasionally I also engage in rewarding exchanges there but the few loud, brash and opinionated (but not well informed) users in the subreddits I frequent do lower my level of engagement and enjoyment considerably.
I think the subreddit system is a good way of categorising content and more importantly, behaviour. People are talking a lot about misogyny but its possible to avoid all the drama if you simply subscribe to smaller, more interesting, well moderated subs. I kept up with my favourite books, video games and other interests like history without being interrupted by Pao hate.
I think HN is great too. The knowledge of some of the commenters here can be very educational.
I think HN is great too. The knowledge of some of the commenters here can be very educational.
Yes. The smaller subreddits that make up most of my subscriptions are fine (programming languages etc) but the larger ones have a very high noise to signal ratio.
It will only be good if he unban the banned subreddits. If he leaves them banned it means that they did unpopular changes, laid blame on one person, remove the person but leave the changes.
You applaud them on a PR strategy that is akin to dictatorships all over the world denouncing opposition as "terrorists" and criminals?
The community is not a coherent block. To give the impression that the criticism stems from an organized group of people that applaud and tolerate death threats is the equivalent of binding it to a strawman and lighting it on fire with gasoline.
The community is not a coherent block. To give the impression that the criticism stems from an organized group of people that applaud and tolerate death threats is the equivalent of binding it to a strawman and lighting it on fire with gasoline.
The first rule of reddit is unsubscribing from all the default subs and searching for the ones most relevant to your interests.
The day I discovered I could do that quickly made Reddit my favorite site on the web (/r/NFL, /r/homeimprovement, /r/television, etc).
I'd love to see a discovery feature similar to that of Pinterest built into the signup process that algorithmically signs new users up for subreddits most related to their interests.
The day I discovered I could do that quickly made Reddit my favorite site on the web (/r/NFL, /r/homeimprovement, /r/television, etc).
I'd love to see a discovery feature similar to that of Pinterest built into the signup process that algorithmically signs new users up for subreddits most related to their interests.
> The first rule of reddit is unsubscribing from all the default subs and searching for the ones most relevant to your interests.
But isn't that really a huge indictment of their ability to run the site? If the users who really like the site I'll do it by avoiding the horridness of the main promoted content, doesn't that signal some sort of failure in their curation or moderation?
How does a si but isn't that really a huge indictment of their ability to run the site? If the users who really like the site I'll do it by avoiding the horridness of the main promoted content, doesn't that signal some sort of failure of their curation and moderation?
How does a site like that survive long-term?
But isn't that really a huge indictment of their ability to run the site? If the users who really like the site I'll do it by avoiding the horridness of the main promoted content, doesn't that signal some sort of failure in their curation or moderation?
How does a si but isn't that really a huge indictment of their ability to run the site? If the users who really like the site I'll do it by avoiding the horridness of the main promoted content, doesn't that signal some sort of failure of their curation and moderation?
How does a site like that survive long-term?
Maybe the concept of default subs is the mistake?
It might be better to ask users a series of questions about their interests when they sign up, and then create each one a personalized list
It might be better to ask users a series of questions about their interests when they sign up, and then create each one a personalized list
You make "main promoted content" sound more important than it really is. The front page is just one page. It could default to being blank.
Global curation could help reddit, but the site actually needs very little of it. It can survive without main promoted content at all.
Global curation could help reddit, but the site actually needs very little of it. It can survive without main promoted content at all.
Augh, seriously, I just followed a link from Google through Pinterest and they made me connect facebook and choose categories to read an actual link that I found in a search engine.
I used Pinterest some in the early days, but I'll avoid like the plague, now.
The worst part is all they did is intercept the search result for someone else's website and force me to give them all sort of marketing data they can sell in order to get it.
Gross.
I used Pinterest some in the early days, but I'll avoid like the plague, now.
The worst part is all they did is intercept the search result for someone else's website and force me to give them all sort of marketing data they can sell in order to get it.
Gross.
I hope you are subbed to /r/diy if you read /r/homeimprovement!
Make it decentralized and someday we'll reinvent usenet.
From the "PR" that treats the community as "a coherent block":
"Ellen asked me to point out that the sweeping majority of redditors didn’t do this, and many were incredibly supportive. Although the incredible power of the Internet is the amplification of voices, unfortunately sometimes those voices are hateful."
"Ellen asked me to point out that the sweeping majority of redditors didn’t do this, and many were incredibly supportive. Although the incredible power of the Internet is the amplification of voices, unfortunately sometimes those voices are hateful."
I don't think it gives the impression of organization at all. Rather the opposite: it gives the correct impression (unlike in the case of terrorists and criminals) that quite a large number of unconnected people were actively participating in attacks on Pao to some extent or other, rather than it being a smaller organized subgroup of the community, which frankly wouldn't be as bad.
There is always a large number of unconnected people participating in attacks. At any moment in time, there are paid chinese trolls appealing to unity and the party on topics from smog to foreign relations. Some of them, chance has it, are in active discussions with trolls from other governments.
Simply put, you will find trolls and people writing death threats wherever you look. These people do not exactly discriminate.
Simply put, you will find trolls and people writing death threats wherever you look. These people do not exactly discriminate.
The notion of group responsibility for individual actions is insidious, because it's too easy to mount a circular-logic based offense and also because it leads to humanity's favorite game, us v. them.
This wasn't an accusation of group responsibility. In fact, they specifically state in their announcement that
> Ellen asked me to point out that the sweeping majority of redditors didn’t do this, and many were incredibly supportive. Although the incredible power of the Internet is the amplification of voices, unfortunately sometimes those voices are hateful.
Like any popular site, Reddit attracts everything from enlightened discussions to 4chan-level casual trolls (and worse). Pointing out the issues with threats and indicating that the community could be better without individuals who would publicly threaten the life of another person seems very reasonable to me.
> Ellen asked me to point out that the sweeping majority of redditors didn’t do this, and many were incredibly supportive. Although the incredible power of the Internet is the amplification of voices, unfortunately sometimes those voices are hateful.
Like any popular site, Reddit attracts everything from enlightened discussions to 4chan-level casual trolls (and worse). Pointing out the issues with threats and indicating that the community could be better without individuals who would publicly threaten the life of another person seems very reasonable to me.
I have no problem with the notion that those running reddit suffer from extreme cognitive dissonance over this issue. They've been acting in extremely odd ways for some time now.
Actions like the banning of subreddits for the actions of a few bad actors belie the notion that this is how you and they describe it.
Actions like the banning of subreddits for the actions of a few bad actors belie the notion that this is how you and they describe it.
You were modded down, but I don't know why. On what planet does it make sense to ban /r/fatpeoplehate while permitting /r/CoonTown?
If you don't have a coherent content policy -- and no sane person could argue that Reddit does -- then you're better off with none at all.
If you don't have a coherent content policy -- and no sane person could argue that Reddit does -- then you're better off with none at all.
FPH was targeting individuals for harassment.
The subreddit was filled with photographs that were either a) creepshots taken off the street without the subject's permission and b) friends-only Facebook posts shared with the public without the subject's permission (which is a violation of Facebook's TOS).
Then, on top of that, they were harassing imgur staff members for enforcing their ToS.
CoonTown, as disgusting as it is, wasn't doing that, at least not in the sheer volumes of numbers FPH was. Most of that sub consisted of making racist statements about news articles and misinterpreted statistics.
The subreddit was filled with photographs that were either a) creepshots taken off the street without the subject's permission and b) friends-only Facebook posts shared with the public without the subject's permission (which is a violation of Facebook's TOS).
Then, on top of that, they were harassing imgur staff members for enforcing their ToS.
CoonTown, as disgusting as it is, wasn't doing that, at least not in the sheer volumes of numbers FPH was. Most of that sub consisted of making racist statements about news articles and misinterpreted statistics.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Was anything happening in FPH illegal? If not, then there's no rational basis for treating it any differently than any other hate-oriented subreddit.
If there were in fact some legal concerns, then I stand corrected.
If there were in fact some legal concerns, then I stand corrected.
Reddits stated policy was to remove harassment (and harrassing subs). So fph harrassed users and broke that policy. Coontown, while also racist and imo worse, stays in its box, doesn't brigade, doesn't target specific people, and generally just says racist stuff about news articles and posts memes.
Fatpeople hate was banned for brigading - for actions not ideas - because fatpeople hate would link to real world people and real world profiles and thousands over users would visit and vote and hundreds of users would leave harassing messages.
Ellen got so much shot for the "we're banning actions not ideas" quote (in this thread even) yet here's an example of it being used - leaving absolutely vile subs live because they don't brigade and banning subs when they do brigade and she's getting shit for that too.
Ellen got so much shot for the "we're banning actions not ideas" quote (in this thread even) yet here's an example of it being used - leaving absolutely vile subs live because they don't brigade and banning subs when they do brigade and she's getting shit for that too.
They did, but I don't think most people realised that FPH brigaded because the details didn't make it into the news and weren't mentioned in the admin response. So for anyone who didn't dig deeply into it themselves, it looked like the admins had just banned it at random. Then rather than explaining it, the admins made a bullshit PR non-statement about how they were "banning actions not ideas". Really badly handled.
And... The fact that /r/CoonTown apparently wasn't brigading and therefore was left alone for free speech reasons is... not really badly handled?
Pick.
Pick.
What? Clearly both should be banned, but banning one is much better than banning neither.
No, because it leads to an incoherent policy.
Reddit's original policy, for better or for worse, was "anything that isn't illegal." They had to add one or two things to that over the years but they stuck to that.
Reddit's policy then became, unofficially, "trust us to get rid of the crap." That sounds fine, but it has problems:
1. it's not the original policy. HN has a "trust us" policy and it works great but it's always had that. HN has never been billed as "come say what you want." Changing the policy is a bait and switch to the old community.
2. It was never admitted to. While switching to the new policy, the official line was that the old policy was still in place.
3. It requires positive social capital. Remember Philip Greenspun's infamous article describing the VCs at ArsDigita as "a group of nursery school children who've stolen a Boeing 747 and are now flipping all the switches trying to get it to take off"[1]? That's what the reddit admin has been like for months, and it leads to negative social capital. Some guy was shadowbanned but didn't know it for years, patiently posting in subreddits all along. The CEO didn't use the company's only product.
If you've ever experienced a dysfunctional internet community -- and who hasn't -- you recognize the patterns of decisions made in a hurry to stop whomever is immediately yelling at you and then trying to justify it with whatever they can cobble together afterwards, and that explanation will be completely unsuitable for the next crisis which will require yet another made up explanation.
[1] http://waxy.org/random/arsdigita/
Reddit's original policy, for better or for worse, was "anything that isn't illegal." They had to add one or two things to that over the years but they stuck to that.
Reddit's policy then became, unofficially, "trust us to get rid of the crap." That sounds fine, but it has problems:
1. it's not the original policy. HN has a "trust us" policy and it works great but it's always had that. HN has never been billed as "come say what you want." Changing the policy is a bait and switch to the old community.
2. It was never admitted to. While switching to the new policy, the official line was that the old policy was still in place.
3. It requires positive social capital. Remember Philip Greenspun's infamous article describing the VCs at ArsDigita as "a group of nursery school children who've stolen a Boeing 747 and are now flipping all the switches trying to get it to take off"[1]? That's what the reddit admin has been like for months, and it leads to negative social capital. Some guy was shadowbanned but didn't know it for years, patiently posting in subreddits all along. The CEO didn't use the company's only product.
If you've ever experienced a dysfunctional internet community -- and who hasn't -- you recognize the patterns of decisions made in a hurry to stop whomever is immediately yelling at you and then trying to justify it with whatever they can cobble together afterwards, and that explanation will be completely unsuitable for the next crisis which will require yet another made up explanation.
[1] http://waxy.org/random/arsdigita/
I agree that they're changing their policy, and that it has been—and always was going to be—a painful process. But the failures of their original policy get splashed across the Internet every few months. So they can either stick their head in the sand, pretend it's not the problem it always has been, and watch their community get turned into the world's largest bastion of hate speech, or they can fix their mistakes and clean house. Are they doing a good job? Not particularly. I don't think they really know how. But they'll figure it out eventually. Hopefully meanwhile not fucking everything else up, too.
Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good isn't great either.
This isn't responsive to anything I said. It's a response to a different comment that says "they should only get rid of all toxic communities, not just some of them."
Building a community requires trust from the community members, especially the community members who are volunteers donating their time to help the long-term health of it. If the people in charge consistently act like they don't know what the fuck they are doing the volunteers quickly feel put upon.
The hardest part of managing a user community is dealing with all the users.
Building a community requires trust from the community members, especially the community members who are volunteers donating their time to help the long-term health of it. If the people in charge consistently act like they don't know what the fuck they are doing the volunteers quickly feel put upon.
The hardest part of managing a user community is dealing with all the users.
Why they should be banned? You know that you can just stay away.
No, it isn't. Given that there was no blatantly illegal content involved, there are only two possible reasons for not treating these two subreddits the same. Either the admins are a) clueless nitwits who don't know what's going on with their own site, or b) sympathetic to one but not the other.
Which do you believe is the correct explanation? Can you see any other possibilities?
Which do you believe is the correct explanation? Can you see any other possibilities?
If you're in my house, I'm going to hold you to a much higher standard than "not blatantly illegal". If you resent Reddit doing the same, well, the Internet isn't lacking for dank underbellies.
So I'm allowed to hold Klan meetings in your house, as long as I don't make fun of any overweight minorities?
Because that's what the admins have basically said, by their actions.
Because that's what the admins have basically said, by their actions.
> Because that's what the admins have basically said, by their actions.
Nope, the Reddit admins just haven't closed those subreddits yet. But they will. They've closed the child porn subreddits, they've closed the revenge porn subreddits, they've closed the hate groups that bleed out into the larger internet. r/coontown will be closed, too. It hasn't yet, which is a shame, but if you read into that fact that the reddit admins approve of it, then be prepared to be disappointed in a few months when it gets closed, too.
Nope, the Reddit admins just haven't closed those subreddits yet. But they will. They've closed the child porn subreddits, they've closed the revenge porn subreddits, they've closed the hate groups that bleed out into the larger internet. r/coontown will be closed, too. It hasn't yet, which is a shame, but if you read into that fact that the reddit admins approve of it, then be prepared to be disappointed in a few months when it gets closed, too.
Funny how you're getting downvoted for stating the obvious.
I probably sound more vested in the issue than I am. I probably also sound like I'm piling on with unhelpful feedback at a difficult time. I don't intend either -- I'm just a bit perplexed at why some forms of controversial, hate-oriented, and/or immature speech are considered OK on Reddit while others aren't.
They're getting downvoted for stating that it would be better if r/fatpeoplehate was still active on Reddit.
You do have an active imagination, I'll give you that much credit.
I've been modded down rather interestingly in this thread. Clearly someone has a beef with my observations.
Humans aren't really individuals, though they labor under the illusion of such.
They're weak hiveminds. Individuals, if they exist at all, are rare and want nothing to do with the rest of you.
When foreign hiveminds come into contact, one attempts to absorb the other, and failing that, to destroy the other. Memes are highly infectious, and so it's often important to police memes to make sure no foreign ones disrupt the hivemind's self.
One or another hivemind sent off a few spurious signals, and a few highly excited human units acted on those. The hiveminds in question don't feel responsible because they didn't intend to send those signals (or want to pretend they didn't).
They're weak hiveminds. Individuals, if they exist at all, are rare and want nothing to do with the rest of you.
When foreign hiveminds come into contact, one attempts to absorb the other, and failing that, to destroy the other. Memes are highly infectious, and so it's often important to police memes to make sure no foreign ones disrupt the hivemind's self.
One or another hivemind sent off a few spurious signals, and a few highly excited human units acted on those. The hiveminds in question don't feel responsible because they didn't intend to send those signals (or want to pretend they didn't).
That's fairly cynical, and I don't have that experience at all, and I do not agree with you, and I do not know of any evidence backing a single one of your statements.
Most of the individuals that do death threats are doing it because they think that their peers would approve. The community effect is very powerful and sometimes the community deserves blame.
All of the individuals who do death threats are crazy.
No matter how much you dislike someone, death threats are always the wrong side of the red line.
No matter how much you dislike someone, death threats are always the wrong side of the red line.
Spoken like someone who's never faced true evil.
I don't think that the community at large supports those individuals who did those death threats.
Well, somebody frickin' wrote those threats. It did happen.
And people who should have had the sense to see there were vile pighumpers in their midst did not moderate their nastiness.
And people who should have had the sense to see there were vile pighumpers in their midst did not moderate their nastiness.
>Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
this comment and other comments you've posted make me believe that you're really ignorant.
"I'm convinced that there is a highly vocal group (of young men, most likely) that are hell-bent on breaking Internet communities and even corporeal communities with their grotesqueries. And when they're challenged, they howl "but you're censoring my free speech!""
why do you think that internet communities need to be so heavily moderated?
"I'm convinced that there is a highly vocal group (of young men, most likely) that are hell-bent on breaking Internet communities and even corporeal communities with their grotesqueries. And when they're challenged, they howl "but you're censoring my free speech!""
why do you think that internet communities need to be so heavily moderated?
wut
>I also applaud Reddit's announcement for calling the community out on their childish BS
Anything less doesn't get heard - or it gets ignored. A certain pirate group that asked the U.N for help, was ignored, and resorted to boarding ships and capturing prisoners comes to mind.
I've known very few people who cared to have Pao as CEO since her taking the position. Anyone who gave attention to Reddit Corporate disliked her being in that position and felt her politics would get in the way (and they did). The only people who seemed to like her in that seat were those with the same ideological and political leanings as her (not a big surprise there). [0]
The fact people had to get "up in arms" and make a huge fuss about her to get her out of the position shows action should have been taken sooner, rather than later. But nobody pays attention to the quiet protests. They only give notice to the extreme.
Yes - some of the comments against her were extreme, unnecessary, and irrelevant to her position and the problems surrounding her. I saw death/rape threats, totally uncalled for. Anything less was ignored.
[0] And her Karma tells the story. It's almost always been negative. https://i.imgur.com/nrYiK5M.png
Anything less doesn't get heard - or it gets ignored. A certain pirate group that asked the U.N for help, was ignored, and resorted to boarding ships and capturing prisoners comes to mind.
I've known very few people who cared to have Pao as CEO since her taking the position. Anyone who gave attention to Reddit Corporate disliked her being in that position and felt her politics would get in the way (and they did). The only people who seemed to like her in that seat were those with the same ideological and political leanings as her (not a big surprise there). [0]
The fact people had to get "up in arms" and make a huge fuss about her to get her out of the position shows action should have been taken sooner, rather than later. But nobody pays attention to the quiet protests. They only give notice to the extreme.
Yes - some of the comments against her were extreme, unnecessary, and irrelevant to her position and the problems surrounding her. I saw death/rape threats, totally uncalled for. Anything less was ignored.
[0] And her Karma tells the story. It's almost always been negative. https://i.imgur.com/nrYiK5M.png
> The reduction in compassion that happens when we’re all behind computer screens is not good for the world. People are still people even if there is Internet between you.
That is humanity. People are narcissistic assholes. If the average person wasn't scared of what would happen or how they're perceived they'd punch you right in the face for looking in their direction.
That's what internet anonymity does. Brings out people's true essence. You see it with road rage too. The protection of the vehicle and the quick flight make giving the finger in response to a reasonable mishap an easy answer. A "FUCK YOU" for accidentally veering into your lane. Sound reasonable?
Yeah there's a few Mother Teresas out there, but most of them are self righteous a-holes too. What a world.
That is humanity. People are narcissistic assholes. If the average person wasn't scared of what would happen or how they're perceived they'd punch you right in the face for looking in their direction.
That's what internet anonymity does. Brings out people's true essence. You see it with road rage too. The protection of the vehicle and the quick flight make giving the finger in response to a reasonable mishap an easy answer. A "FUCK YOU" for accidentally veering into your lane. Sound reasonable?
Yeah there's a few Mother Teresas out there, but most of them are self righteous a-holes too. What a world.
> That is humanity. People are narcissistic assholes. If the average person wasn't scared of what would happen or how they're perceived they'd punch you right in the face for looking in their direction.
I disagree. Some people: yes. Average person: I don't know, I suspect probably not. I've met a lot of people from different parts of the US, Canada, and around the world. A great many of them have exhibited a tendency towards genuine empathy. That too is human nature, it's not all narcissism and self-interest.
I disagree. Some people: yes. Average person: I don't know, I suspect probably not. I've met a lot of people from different parts of the US, Canada, and around the world. A great many of them have exhibited a tendency towards genuine empathy. That too is human nature, it's not all narcissism and self-interest.
Stop using Mother Teresa as a pinnacle of good. She was a terrible human who thought suffering was good and gave people a place to suffer, not to heal.
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." -- Oscar Wilde
Relevant as always.
Relevant as always.
Mother Teresa was a rather terrible person. She saw human suffering as a way to be closer to God and squirreled donations to her clinics away for personal bank accounts of her and her higher-class/political goons. She defended some rather evil characters and even kept a $1.25 million dollars donated to her from stolen money. When asked to return it, she simply ignored the request.
> I also applaud Reddit's announcement for calling the community out on their childish BS
You mean this?
> [1] Disagreements are fine. Death threats are not, are not covered under free speech, and will continue to get offending users banned.
All that opposition - strong enough to convince "Chairman Pao" to resign - reduced to death threats? All those arbitrary bans written off as a just punishment for criminal behavior? Something tells me that we haven't seen the last of "safe space" Reddit.
You mean this?
> [1] Disagreements are fine. Death threats are not, are not covered under free speech, and will continue to get offending users banned.
All that opposition - strong enough to convince "Chairman Pao" to resign - reduced to death threats? All those arbitrary bans written off as a just punishment for criminal behavior? Something tells me that we haven't seen the last of "safe space" Reddit.
No one is "reducing" anything.
Altman is not justifying the arbitrary bans (or any Reddit admin shenanigans) here, that is not the topic of this sentence. He is talking strictly about one dangerous activity that gets offenders banned: death threats, which Ellen Pao (the human at the other end) received.
We don't know why Pao went out. We can suspect it was the backlash (more likely), or disagreements with the board [0] but we can suspect.
But that does nothing to make her opposition entirely legitimate, when at its strongest it was hijacked by namecalling, cyber-bullying, and yes, threats to Pao's life. The subset of Redditors who did this deserve to be told how shitty it is. The remaining, legitimate opposition should recognize the distinction.
[0] - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/technology/ellen-pao-reddi...
Altman is not justifying the arbitrary bans (or any Reddit admin shenanigans) here, that is not the topic of this sentence. He is talking strictly about one dangerous activity that gets offenders banned: death threats, which Ellen Pao (the human at the other end) received.
We don't know why Pao went out. We can suspect it was the backlash (more likely), or disagreements with the board [0] but we can suspect.
But that does nothing to make her opposition entirely legitimate, when at its strongest it was hijacked by namecalling, cyber-bullying, and yes, threats to Pao's life. The subset of Redditors who did this deserve to be told how shitty it is. The remaining, legitimate opposition should recognize the distinction.
[0] - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/technology/ellen-pao-reddi...
> No one is "reducing" anything.
Do you see another reference to the overwhelming opposition inside the user base? Anything in the vein of "the mounting opposition convinced us that there's no point in fighting our users"?
Because from what I read in the announcement, the opposition is presented as a vocal, hateful and criminal minority that should absolutely not be mistaken for the "sweeping majority" that was "incredibly supportive" of the CEO.
Do you see another reference to the overwhelming opposition inside the user base? Anything in the vein of "the mounting opposition convinced us that there's no point in fighting our users"?
Because from what I read in the announcement, the opposition is presented as a vocal, hateful and criminal minority that should absolutely not be mistaken for the "sweeping majority" that was "incredibly supportive" of the CEO.
> We don't know why Pao went out.
Why don't you believe her when she says it was a disagreement with the board over the future of reddit?
"We don't know" when the person in question is saying "this is why" is not very respectful.
Why don't you believe her when she says it was a disagreement with the board over the future of reddit?
"We don't know" when the person in question is saying "this is why" is not very respectful.
I understand your point. In the announcement over at Reddit, people have noted how much of a textbook PR move this is looking like, so I'm assuming the "this is why" is equally calculated and not the whole picture.
However, you're right. The two reasons are not mutually exclusive.
However, you're right. The two reasons are not mutually exclusive.
Maybe she left after disagreeing with the board about how to respond to the backlash. Reddit could have easily nuked every account that disrespected and/or threatened Ms. Pao. But that would have been a different Reddit.
Calling her "Chairman Pao" is racist, but moreso, reductive.
Don't know why people are downvoting this. It's racist. Period. End of discussion.
that's a stretch. if the intent is to create a sarcastic nick-name that compares the ceo to a dictator, "chairman pao" is going to be a front-runner not because pao and mao are both chinese but because pao and mao are only 1 letter different from each other.
You can't really reason with people once they labeled something as "racist". Convincing them that they are wrong would imply that they can't differentiate between what's racist and what's not and that's something that would affect their core beliefs.
Regardless of the intention, they ARE both chinese. So is it really a stretch to see a racist element to this nick name? It is racist by default. I'm not saying that it is a greatly offensive nickname or even unfunny, but for someone to call it racist is not at all a stretch.
Is it racist to acknowledge that Ellen Pao is of Chinese ancestry? I don't get how but I don't get a lot of the modern sensitivities.
Certainly if you want to denigrate someone and you bring up their gender or ethnicity, it can be sexist or racist.
but they aren't denigrating her because she is Chinese. They are denigrating her because they perceive her to be a terrible CEO, and Chairman Pao is a easy way to belittle what they see as her 'authoritarian' ways
Give it a rest
Even Pao admits it's likely because her name rhymes well.
Reddit has ALWAYS loved irreverent and even incredibly offensive puns.
Redditors would be calling her Chairman Pao even if she was well loved just for humor value.
https://www.reddit.com/r/yishansucks
Reddit has ALWAYS loved irreverent and even incredibly offensive puns.
Redditors would be calling her Chairman Pao even if she was well loved just for humor value.
https://www.reddit.com/r/yishansucks
how is it racist?
It's not racist, calm down Tumblr.
Calling someone you disagree with racist is itself racist. People call her Charmin Pao because she moved to limit free speech, increase dictatorial control, fire those who disagree with her and generally seems like dictator in here own special little way.
yes only those of Chinese decent are compared to Mao.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0SO8xk4b...
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0SO8xk4b...
calling obama a monkey is different from calling george w. bush a monkey regardless of intention.
Also funny which trumps both even if true.
When will these people stop acting like our moral superiors. smh.
I don't like this at all.
Even if she wasn't the right person (I don't know), all the worst elements of the site are going to see this as a victory for their awful behavior and it's going to get worse.
The people who attacked her with sexism and comments about her personal relationships. The people who supported FPH even though they were attacking people in real life and off Reddit, not just posting comments in their personal corner of 'discussion'.
She didn't do a good job of it, but at least she tried to stand up against some of the worst of Reddit.
I worry heavily that if the new person doesn't draw a clear line at the start things are going to get a lot worse in terms of hate/abuse/harassment.
EDIT: After posting this I saw Nilay Patel tweeted basically the same thing: https://twitter.com/reckless/status/619620964658245632
Even if she wasn't the right person (I don't know), all the worst elements of the site are going to see this as a victory for their awful behavior and it's going to get worse.
The people who attacked her with sexism and comments about her personal relationships. The people who supported FPH even though they were attacking people in real life and off Reddit, not just posting comments in their personal corner of 'discussion'.
She didn't do a good job of it, but at least she tried to stand up against some of the worst of Reddit.
I worry heavily that if the new person doesn't draw a clear line at the start things are going to get a lot worse in terms of hate/abuse/harassment.
EDIT: After posting this I saw Nilay Patel tweeted basically the same thing: https://twitter.com/reckless/status/619620964658245632
If Reddit can get back to focusing on positive things, like reddit gifts, admins with good community relations, and not firing people who have cancer, I think they'll be in good shape.
If Reddit continues to focus on cracking down on the negativity that exists on the site, it will give the negative voices a bigger stage.
I think they will be able to get back to doing positive, fun things, and the negativity will be drowned out.
If Reddit continues to focus on cracking down on the negativity that exists on the site, it will give the negative voices a bigger stage.
I think they will be able to get back to doing positive, fun things, and the negativity will be drowned out.
> She didn't do a good job of it, but at least she tried to stand up against some of the worst of Reddit.
These are two separate things. The fact that she tried to stand up against some of the idiots that inhabit the site doesn't mitigate against the fact that she did not do a good job. She should have resigned or been fired for not doing a good job regardless of how well she coped with the jerks en masse.
These are two separate things. The fact that she tried to stand up against some of the idiots that inhabit the site doesn't mitigate against the fact that she did not do a good job. She should have resigned or been fired for not doing a good job regardless of how well she coped with the jerks en masse.
They're not the same thing, my worry is that some Redditors (or employees) may not pay attention to the difference and avoid further cleanup.
> but at least she tried to stand up against some of the worst of Reddit.
I'm baffled at how people misunderstand Ellen's actions in shutting down a few subreddits randomly.
She did not 'clean' reddit of the worst of reddit nor 'hate' subreddits. In fact, there are still dozens and dozens of really disgusting stuff on reddit like /r/gasthekikes and /r/coontown
Let's please stop this false narrative that she was a champion of some kind who came in and tried to 'clean up' reddit.
Not only are there plenty of reprehensible stuff on reddit still, Ellen's claim that she targeted behavior and not speech rang hollow for the majority on reddit because communities like SRS were and are getting away with the same or worse behavior.
I'm baffled at how people misunderstand Ellen's actions in shutting down a few subreddits randomly.
She did not 'clean' reddit of the worst of reddit nor 'hate' subreddits. In fact, there are still dozens and dozens of really disgusting stuff on reddit like /r/gasthekikes and /r/coontown
Let's please stop this false narrative that she was a champion of some kind who came in and tried to 'clean up' reddit.
Not only are there plenty of reprehensible stuff on reddit still, Ellen's claim that she targeted behavior and not speech rang hollow for the majority on reddit because communities like SRS were and are getting away with the same or worse behavior.
Let's make three categories of things on Reddit. One is innocuous (or relatively so) like /r/knitting or even /r/politics or /r/atheism. Perhaps there are big arguments but in the grand scheme of things it's not bad.
Type two is /r/coontown or other hate subs. They're clearly offensive. I wouldn't let them on my site if I ran it, but they exist. The key here is they stay mostly to themselves. I wasn't aware of them before all this.
Type 3 are problem subs. Things like /r/FPH. There often offensive, but on top of that they branch out to act in the real world or in other subs. They don't stay confined to their one little corner but actually make things worse for everyone. Never if your topic isn't flat out offensive doxing or causing actual harm fits here.
What they did was a small hit against some of category three. It wasn't much, but it's the most I've seen in a long time on Reddit. Given the amount of stuff I've seen in the last year against various people in the games industry in other places, some of that organized on Reddit, I'm happy to see something done.
There are still tons of subs in category three that they haven't done anything too. The vast majority of them. And I really don't care about category two things, I'd be fine if I didn't wanted to ban those too.
By no means did she clear up Reddit. But at least I saw she tried to do something, dipping her toe into the battle. And I'm worried I'll be back sliding on that.
Type two is /r/coontown or other hate subs. They're clearly offensive. I wouldn't let them on my site if I ran it, but they exist. The key here is they stay mostly to themselves. I wasn't aware of them before all this.
Type 3 are problem subs. Things like /r/FPH. There often offensive, but on top of that they branch out to act in the real world or in other subs. They don't stay confined to their one little corner but actually make things worse for everyone. Never if your topic isn't flat out offensive doxing or causing actual harm fits here.
What they did was a small hit against some of category three. It wasn't much, but it's the most I've seen in a long time on Reddit. Given the amount of stuff I've seen in the last year against various people in the games industry in other places, some of that organized on Reddit, I'm happy to see something done.
There are still tons of subs in category three that they haven't done anything too. The vast majority of them. And I really don't care about category two things, I'd be fine if I didn't wanted to ban those too.
By no means did she clear up Reddit. But at least I saw she tried to do something, dipping her toe into the battle. And I'm worried I'll be back sliding on that.
> By no means did she clear up Reddit. But at least I saw she tried to do something, dipping her toe into the battle. And I'm worried I'll be back sliding on that.
The main problem I think most people had with it wasn't that there was action taken. It's that it was arbitrary, there were no guidelines given, and there was no consistency.
If there had been a set of community guidelines published, a week given for moderators to rein in their members, and then the ban hammer had come down, I doubt anyone would have cared.
It was probably incompetence rather than malice -- same as firing Victoria -- but the fact is that there were arbitrary actions taken with no explanation, warning, or chance for people to prepare.
The main problem I think most people had with it wasn't that there was action taken. It's that it was arbitrary, there were no guidelines given, and there was no consistency.
If there had been a set of community guidelines published, a week given for moderators to rein in their members, and then the ban hammer had come down, I doubt anyone would have cared.
It was probably incompetence rather than malice -- same as firing Victoria -- but the fact is that there were arbitrary actions taken with no explanation, warning, or chance for people to prepare.
> The main problem I think most people had with it wasn't that there was action taken. It's that it was arbitrary, there were no guidelines given, and there was no consistency.
There were all of these things. There just wasn't completeness - i.e. they didn't (yet?) ban every sub that was in "category 3" harassing people IRL. It was not arbitrary: those ones were actively harassing people. There were guidelines: they existed before, and she posted them in response. There was no inconsistency: subreddits failing to meet these criteria were not banned under this policy. 100% of people upset on these grounds are in the wrong.
There were all of these things. There just wasn't completeness - i.e. they didn't (yet?) ban every sub that was in "category 3" harassing people IRL. It was not arbitrary: those ones were actively harassing people. There were guidelines: they existed before, and she posted them in response. There was no inconsistency: subreddits failing to meet these criteria were not banned under this policy. 100% of people upset on these grounds are in the wrong.
All of the brigading stuff is so needless subjective too. If you are going to ban some communities for behavior, establish a clear definition of that behavior and track it.
Analytics showing brigading statistics would be dead simple. It would establish a clear, objective metric and back the notion of behavior, not ideas, being targeted.
I also kind of doubt objective numbers would justify the actual banned subreddits; I think it would show a lot of other ones were just as bad or worse, but weren't so unapologetically disgusting.
Analytics showing brigading statistics would be dead simple. It would establish a clear, objective metric and back the notion of behavior, not ideas, being targeted.
I also kind of doubt objective numbers would justify the actual banned subreddits; I think it would show a lot of other ones were just as bad or worse, but weren't so unapologetically disgusting.
There were a lot more banned subreddits and users way before Pao was anywhere in the reddit picture. Its nothing new.
The reddit anger towards her was mostly accumulation of cultural change that has been going in reddit management every since Yishan left (also ~30 employees were fired/let go in a very short period) and firing of Victoria just the tipping point. It also helps that Victoria was very well liked.
I honestly dont know who is to be blamed for reddit going the shithole but at the end of the day CEO needs to take responsibility.
The reddit anger towards her was mostly accumulation of cultural change that has been going in reddit management every since Yishan left (also ~30 employees were fired/let go in a very short period) and firing of Victoria just the tipping point. It also helps that Victoria was very well liked.
I honestly dont know who is to be blamed for reddit going the shithole but at the end of the day CEO needs to take responsibility.
>I honestly dont know who is to be blamed for reddit going the shithole but at the end of the day CEO needs to take responsibility.
That's what it boils down to. The buck stops at the CEO's desk, even if the CEO wasn't directly involved with the problem. This is really not much different than the CEO of Target losing his job after someone hacked its customer data.
That's what it boils down to. The buck stops at the CEO's desk, even if the CEO wasn't directly involved with the problem. This is really not much different than the CEO of Target losing his job after someone hacked its customer data.
> Given the amount of stuff I've seen in the last year against various people in the games industry in other places, some of that organized on Reddit, I'm happy to see something done.
I'm not. I'd prefer all of the communities stay on a site like reddit, where specific users get banned for clear violations of harassment rules, rather than the entire communities getting shut down because of the actions of a few. Most communities on reddit had clear anti-harassment rules and moderators usually banned it when it was seen.
Now, instead, the communities are moving over to sites like voat.co and 8ch.net - communities that won't get policed in any way whatsoever. And in many cases, the communities encourage harassment, brigading, and general nastiness. This is going to make the Internet a worse place in general for all of us.
I'm not. I'd prefer all of the communities stay on a site like reddit, where specific users get banned for clear violations of harassment rules, rather than the entire communities getting shut down because of the actions of a few. Most communities on reddit had clear anti-harassment rules and moderators usually banned it when it was seen.
Now, instead, the communities are moving over to sites like voat.co and 8ch.net - communities that won't get policed in any way whatsoever. And in many cases, the communities encourage harassment, brigading, and general nastiness. This is going to make the Internet a worse place in general for all of us.
> This is going to make the Internet a worse place in general for all of us.
How?
Wouldn't that make it a better place, because you won't even know that they exist. Unless you looked, anyway.
How?
Wouldn't that make it a better place, because you won't even know that they exist. Unless you looked, anyway.
They don't stay confined to their community. They use it as a communications hub to harass from.
So what if some sub is offensive? Should it be banned?
Your opinion is offensive to me, yet I don't want to silence you, because freedom of speech is more important than people getting offended.
Your opinion is offensive to me, yet I don't want to silence you, because freedom of speech is more important than people getting offended.
All she managed to do was give these "Type 3" subs the benefit of the Streisand effect. It should have been obvious that the backlash to any perceived censorship would be far greater than the effect of the censorship itself.
By no means do they stay to themselves, however. Pick a news issue involving race in the vaguest sense and they're there in the comments, promoting their diversity-apocalypse conspiracy theory. If the membership numbers are to be believed, it's swindling some people(some of whom perhaps had pre-existing beliefs, sure).
[deleted]
Just because she didn't completely clean Reddit doesn't mean she didn't attempt to clean some of it or make the decision to do so a bad move. The existence of some bad communities also shouldn't be used as an excuse to keep other bad communities.
He did call redditors out in the announcement though, maybe it'll be alright
https://reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cucye/an_old_te...
" As a closing note, it was sickening to see some of the things redditors wrote about Ellen. [1] The reduction in compassion that happens when we’re all behind computer screens is not good for the world. People are still people even if there is Internet between you. "
https://reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cucye/an_old_te...
" As a closing note, it was sickening to see some of the things redditors wrote about Ellen. [1] The reduction in compassion that happens when we’re all behind computer screens is not good for the world. People are still people even if there is Internet between you. "
I hadn't read his post yet, God I'm glad to see that. I hope you're right.
[deleted]
I think it was the right move for many reasons.
Should someone hesitate from making the right move if vile people happen to support that move?
Should someone hesitate from making the right move if vile people happen to support that move?
I think they should have waited for some cool off or had a 'shadow' CEO or announced this at the same time as a big cut off of some of the worst subs.
This can easily be interpreted as a repudiation of some of the things she tried to do to clean up the site, and that would be a horrible message to send.
This can easily be interpreted as a repudiation of some of the things she tried to do to clean up the site, and that would be a horrible message to send.
>comments about her personal relationships
Is it not a relevant comment on her character that she has married someone who (allegedly) defrauded over a hundred million dollars worth of pension funds? That she later sued a company she was fired from over supposed sexism for the exact amount her husband needed for his legal defense fund? That she lost the case miserably due to a complete lack of evidence? (The case against her husband, on the other hand, looks like it will be quite the open and shut case with mountains of evidence)
I don't care about reddit at all, but I don't understand how anyone can defend her and her husband after one of them (allegedly) ruined the pension funds of thousands of clients who trusted them, and the other tried to provide him with the funding to get off scot free for the actions.
Would you defend Bernie Madoff or someone who had been complicit in trying to keep him unpunished for his crimes?
Is it not a relevant comment on her character that she has married someone who (allegedly) defrauded over a hundred million dollars worth of pension funds? That she later sued a company she was fired from over supposed sexism for the exact amount her husband needed for his legal defense fund? That she lost the case miserably due to a complete lack of evidence? (The case against her husband, on the other hand, looks like it will be quite the open and shut case with mountains of evidence)
I don't care about reddit at all, but I don't understand how anyone can defend her and her husband after one of them (allegedly) ruined the pension funds of thousands of clients who trusted them, and the other tried to provide him with the funding to get off scot free for the actions.
Would you defend Bernie Madoff or someone who had been complicit in trying to keep him unpunished for his crimes?
> I don't understand how anyone can defend her and her husband after one of them (allegedly) ruined the pension funds of thousands of clients who trusted them
This is 2015, I really hope you don't need someone to explain to you that women don't have to share the blame for their husbands (alleged) misdeeds. Disgusting.
This is 2015, I really hope you don't need someone to explain to you that women don't have to share the blame for their husbands (alleged) misdeeds. Disgusting.
Based on your comment history I can't tell if you're a troll or just severely misguided. On the off chance that you do legitimately believe this, I'll go ahead and respond.
Fundamentally, you misjudge my stance: I don't care Pao's a woman. If I learned that the woman I married had done that to people, I would not stay with them, because I cannot reconcile being married to someone who can do that with my own ethos. That she has speaks volumes of her character. If Pao had committed fraud, and her husband had stayed with her, I would have the same feelings about him.
(From your comments, I suppose this is the part where you claim that Male White Nerds on the internet always say that, but never do it, etc.)
Second: It's not even just a matter of staying with him, but she has sued a company that turned out to be innocent for sexual discrimination asking for the exact amount in damages that he needs to cover his legal fees. To me, that steps beyond just having suspect character, to outright being complicit in the attempt to prevent him from paying for his crimes.
Pao is disgusting, and it has nothing to do with her gender. Only her actions.
Fundamentally, you misjudge my stance: I don't care Pao's a woman. If I learned that the woman I married had done that to people, I would not stay with them, because I cannot reconcile being married to someone who can do that with my own ethos. That she has speaks volumes of her character. If Pao had committed fraud, and her husband had stayed with her, I would have the same feelings about him.
(From your comments, I suppose this is the part where you claim that Male White Nerds on the internet always say that, but never do it, etc.)
Second: It's not even just a matter of staying with him, but she has sued a company that turned out to be innocent for sexual discrimination asking for the exact amount in damages that he needs to cover his legal fees. To me, that steps beyond just having suspect character, to outright being complicit in the attempt to prevent him from paying for his crimes.
Pao is disgusting, and it has nothing to do with her gender. Only her actions.
“Ellen has done a phenomenal job, especially in the last few months,” he said.
What exactly "phenomenal" has she done? Reddit works pretty much the same as it worked several years ago, but in the meantime she managed to piss off the majority of community, which is the only reason Reddit exists
What exactly "phenomenal" has she done? Reddit works pretty much the same as it worked several years ago, but in the meantime she managed to piss off the majority of community, which is the only reason Reddit exists
I don't even use Reddit and Sam's quote was so odd it caused me to comment below (probably turning more and more grey by the moment).
In the past few months Pao destroyed herself from the top of the mainstream media down to the deepest underground corners of Reddit. She's pissed off high-powered people in the SF investor community, the LA film community, and the NYC advertising community.
I suppose we just have to ignore these sorts of quotes as they feel like "getting biz done and avoiding lawsuits" and reserve judgment until she re-appears working for another YC company.
In the past few months Pao destroyed herself from the top of the mainstream media down to the deepest underground corners of Reddit. She's pissed off high-powered people in the SF investor community, the LA film community, and the NYC advertising community.
I suppose we just have to ignore these sorts of quotes as they feel like "getting biz done and avoiding lawsuits" and reserve judgment until she re-appears working for another YC company.
Sam said it for PR reasons. He also posted this one a Friday afternoon!
Basically they want to give something for news articles that doesn't further paint reddit management as being anti-women or something.
Basically they want to give something for news articles that doesn't further paint reddit management as being anti-women or something.
[deleted]
I agree that nothing much as changed, but "majority"?
Not in the slightest, the majority could not care less about this ruckus and think those agitators are idiots.
Those people are a small, but vocal, minority.
Not in the slightest, the majority could not care less about this ruckus and think those agitators are idiots.
Those people are a small, but vocal, minority.
Maybe. I'm sure a large amount of redditors (maybe not majority) appreciate a well-run IAmA which manages bringing in celebrities and other big names. Pao's actions as CEO directly impacted their ability to do that.
There are plenty of people who use Reddit who have absolutely zero interest in IAmA.
Not everyone is obsessed with celebrity culture.
Not everyone is obsessed with celebrity culture.
I don't understand that either. I can't think of a single thing that she has done to make reddit better.
Is that out of the ordinary? What has any reddit ceo done to make reddit better?
Alexis Ohanian was chairman (and possibly CEO) and Steve Huffman was the original CEO. They made reddit better by creating it.
Yishan Wong was also a CEO (prior to Pao) having been an engineer at facebook. His tenure was also controversial although not as much as Pao.
Yishan Wong was also a CEO (prior to Pao) having been an engineer at facebook. His tenure was also controversial although not as much as Pao.
So the answer is "no, that's not out of the ordinary".
Considering that it was Sam who brought in Ellen, what do expect him to say? if that isn't enough to warrant 'corporatespeak' over-drive, consider that Ellen really enjoys suing her employers and she still hasn't been able to completely pay her legal fees for the last case she lost.
Do you really want Sam to speak honestly about Ellen in public and open himself and reddit up to a lawsuit?
Do you really want Sam to speak honestly about Ellen in public and open himself and reddit up to a lawsuit?
I think it was Yishan (former Reddit CEO) who brought in Ellen.
Yishan referred or suggested Ellen Pao, Sam and the board made the decision:
http://blog.samaltman.com/a-new-team-at-reddit
http://blog.samaltman.com/a-new-team-at-reddit
Not speaking dishonestly would be nice.
[deleted]
Sam and the board are happy and pleased with her performance because she played the part of the suit pushing an over-corporate monetization-focused agenda and then eventually was offered up as a "sacrifice to the reddit ideals", and at the same time she moved the goal posts entirely so now the new CEO and board can "scale back" Ellen's initiatives but only part way, therefore simultaneously putting them in a more monetize-able position AND making them look like they are "fixing what Ellen did".
My best guess is that she fought too hard to monetize by bringing a level of "mainstream" quality and standards to the site which would allow reddit to sell more and better ads (big complaint for advertisers: I don't want my products next to weird subs, etc.), which clearly was not well-received by the community BUT which the board may have encouraged, at least partially.
My best guess is that she fought too hard to monetize by bringing a level of "mainstream" quality and standards to the site which would allow reddit to sell more and better ads (big complaint for advertisers: I don't want my products next to weird subs, etc.), which clearly was not well-received by the community BUT which the board may have encouraged, at least partially.
Supplemental note: I'm not saying they did this by design or that this means Ellen succeeded. The ideal outcome for her would have been to manage that negotiation and positioning herself, identifying and settling into the middle ground and coming out the other side still in charge - this didn't happen, and the turnover does not make any of the parties look good. Still, she tried and probably benefited the business-side of things in some way - the next 12 months will see whether these benefits outweigh the reputation costs.
With reddit gold most of Reddit has no problem with Reddit making money if they do it the right way. But if it means censoring content and speech and changing the community interaction that is totally unacceptable.
I see the backlash against Pao as a reaction to the wrong type of monetization form the communities perspective. Done by a CEO that seems to not have much of an understanding of what Reddit means to the people that use it.
I see the backlash against Pao as a reaction to the wrong type of monetization form the communities perspective. Done by a CEO that seems to not have much of an understanding of what Reddit means to the people that use it.
Google tells me that Reddit gold revenue remains small relative to ad revenue.
I would love for sama to clarify this.
The job she did was sort of a phenomenon, in that someone like me who never even thinks of Reddit was reminded numerous times why that's a good thing. Most CEOs don't do that!
She walked in to a hot mess of a situation after the previous CEO resigned on the spot and kept the company from falling apart (which I thought was a live concern at the time). You try doing that some day.
I imagine it's a lot easier to just have the cash and power to swap out those who threw their hearts out on the line. Big pictures obscure the small pictures of the lives caught in the meat grinder of the march of capital.
Becoming a VC has become the new beginning of the end for any humanity left in a human being.
Becoming a VC has become the new beginning of the end for any humanity left in a human being.
It's hard to ignore the external circumstances that lead to the previous CEO resigning on the spot. Maybe not everyone needs to work in the most expensive city of all to keep a favorite pet startup in startup mode.
Reddit is a simple crud app that runs on amazon for scale. What could a CEO possible do?
Banning fph was a good start. "The community" is actually Reddit's number one problem. It has allowed a large contingent of hateful assholes to congregate there. If this continues the company has no future.
> piss off the majority of the community
I suspect she pissed off a very small, but very vocal minority. Most people (myself included) don't really know or care about Pao one way or the other.
I suspect she pissed off a very small, but very vocal minority. Most people (myself included) don't really know or care about Pao one way or the other.
Right or wrong, fair or unfair, or whatever you think about Ellen, I think most people agree that she had become personally and professionally toxic to reddit as a brand and community and even if she did a great job from here on out, it was going to be an uphill battle to restore community confidence in her as a CEO.
I personally don't believe she had the right qualifications to lead a community-driven site like reddit as it is today, but would have the right qualifications if reddit was going to start making a serious pivot to a more lucrative money making direction via commercial partnerships, advertising, etc.
Reddit may still go that direction, but Huffman won't have the same baggage weighing him down.
(note: this will also likely feed the conspiracy that her turn in the head office was a convenience for her lawsuit, now that she lost, she has no reason to stay in that position)
I agree with other comments chastising the community for the racist/sexist/whatever nature of lots of the negative comments against her. It was childish and dangerous. She had enough issues worthy of reasonable criticism that it wasn't even necessary.
I think this is a good thing for reddit.
I personally don't believe she had the right qualifications to lead a community-driven site like reddit as it is today, but would have the right qualifications if reddit was going to start making a serious pivot to a more lucrative money making direction via commercial partnerships, advertising, etc.
Reddit may still go that direction, but Huffman won't have the same baggage weighing him down.
(note: this will also likely feed the conspiracy that her turn in the head office was a convenience for her lawsuit, now that she lost, she has no reason to stay in that position)
I agree with other comments chastising the community for the racist/sexist/whatever nature of lots of the negative comments against her. It was childish and dangerous. She had enough issues worthy of reasonable criticism that it wasn't even necessary.
I think this is a good thing for reddit.
>Sam Altman, a member of Reddit’s board, said he personally appreciated Ms. Pao’s efforts during her two years working at the start-up. “Ellen has done a phenomenal job, especially in the last few months,” he said.
This is clearly nonsense, otherwise there wouldn't have been a grassroots campaign to remove Ellen Pao from her role.
If Sam Altman honestly believes that Ellen did a "phenomenal" job, he should reconsider his own position at YCombinator.
This is clearly nonsense, otherwise there wouldn't have been a grassroots campaign to remove Ellen Pao from her role.
If Sam Altman honestly believes that Ellen did a "phenomenal" job, he should reconsider his own position at YCombinator.
I think he was just being polite but then who knows, we don't get to see what's going on behind the scenes, we just see the outcome of their decisions.
To say the contrary of what you think is not being polite, is a stupid communication rule that in other places of the world would just make things more complex to understand. There is the possibility to just express what you think in a balanced way. One can just say: she tried to fix a complex problem, that many experiences in the past proved to be very hard to fix. And she is stepping down now after the recent happenings. Or something like that, but to say he did an incredible job when all this mess happened is not a good form of communication.
I'd agree for the most part but especially in North America, there is a culture of beating around the bush and most people avoid confrontation or directly addressing the problem of course unless the other person has an inability to recognize the issue. I'd say even for someone who has a large stake in a publicly visible company, it'd be tough to break that mold even more.
I agree that it could've been better worded without coming out as blunt or being overly polite and politically correct. But then again, Ellen Pao sued her former employer based on questionable grounds (gender bias cried the wolf) and timing (her husband is bankrupt after scamming investors).
If I was in Sam's position, I'd be careful not to awaken the bees nest and just hope that the cold season comes and they all die.
I agree that it could've been better worded without coming out as blunt or being overly polite and politically correct. But then again, Ellen Pao sued her former employer based on questionable grounds (gender bias cried the wolf) and timing (her husband is bankrupt after scamming investors).
If I was in Sam's position, I'd be careful not to awaken the bees nest and just hope that the cold season comes and they all die.
Given her previous record with going after past employers I think Sam was just covering his back from a potential lawsuit.
Given her previous record with going after past employers
If I'm not mistaken, that's a record of one, unless you know something the rest of us don't about her time at Cravath Swaine & Moore, WebTV, BEA Systems, TellMe or Danger.
If I'm not mistaken, that's a record of one, unless you know something the rest of us don't about her time at Cravath Swaine & Moore, WebTV, BEA Systems, TellMe or Danger.
There are some people willing to go after a previous employer for treating them badly and other people who would rather let it go so as to not create a PR mess for yourself / when it comes to future jobs.
Pao has a track record that shows she's in the first group. I'm not saying that should automatically get people to treat her differently, but it's enough of a "track record" for some people, regardless of the record having one data point on it.
Pao has a track record that shows she's in the first group. I'm not saying that should automatically get people to treat her differently, but it's enough of a "track record" for some people, regardless of the record having one data point on it.
It's the Bay Area. Everyone is always talking in superlatives.
Clearly a niciety. That said, it's possible that she did excel in other areas. She's CEO not community wrangler. As a casual user, I had no idea who the CEO even was until recently. Similarly, although I have a username, I couldn't name another user or mod on the entire site. Someone got fired? Ok. Doesn't effect me.
If he thought she did a phenomenal job, it wouldn't have been "a mutual agreement between her and Reddit's board" for her to leave. He would have fought to keep her.
After you fire somebody you feel bad, so you say what a wonderful person they were. The fit just wasn't right, timing wasn't right, blah blah blah.
We'll have to wait for the movie to come out to know what really happened.
We'll have to wait for the movie to come out to know what really happened.
Seems like just yesterday!
http://blog.samaltman.com/a-new-team-at-reddit
> I am delighted to announce the new team we have in place. Ellen Pao will be stepping up to be interim CEO. Because of her combination of vision, execution, and leadership, I expect that she’ll do an incredible job.
http://blog.samaltman.com/a-new-team-at-reddit
> I am delighted to announce the new team we have in place. Ellen Pao will be stepping up to be interim CEO. Because of her combination of vision, execution, and leadership, I expect that she’ll do an incredible job.
It is still incredible what she managed to do ...
Someone's ready for a career in politics.
> This is clearly nonsense, otherwise there wouldn't have been a grassroots campaign to remove Ellen Pao from her role.
When "SJWs" get someone fired we're told a loud, vocal minority has too much power and is dangerous.
The same folks seem to be calling the same thing in a direction they like a "grassroots campaign". I find that interesting. Pao's most downvoted posts still got only a few thousand of Reddit's tens of millions of users expressing their dislike, and petitions topped out at what, 20k of those tens of millions?
When "SJWs" get someone fired we're told a loud, vocal minority has too much power and is dangerous.
The same folks seem to be calling the same thing in a direction they like a "grassroots campaign". I find that interesting. Pao's most downvoted posts still got only a few thousand of Reddit's tens of millions of users expressing their dislike, and petitions topped out at what, 20k of those tens of millions?
More than 200k signed, so you're off by a factor of 10. I think that's too many to dismiss it as a vocal minority.
I think a lot of things were incorrectly attributed to Pao. It doesn't really matter though. I don't think she was ever going to get back the community's confidence.
I think a lot of things were incorrectly attributed to Pao. It doesn't really matter though. I don't think she was ever going to get back the community's confidence.
Out of curiousity, I wonder how many of those 200k actually fork over money for the service? And whether the rate of subscribing was higher, lower, or similar to the general rate. I know we have no way of knowing, but it would be an interesting factoid.
> More than 200k signed, so you're off by a factor of 10.
So half a percent of the userbase or so? I'd call that a vocal minority.
http://www.redditblog.com/2015/06/happy-10th-birthday-to-us-...
> I don't think she was ever going to get back the community's confidence.
Likely true. Backing down here likely means zero chance of addressing toxic communities in the site for the foreseeable future.
So half a percent of the userbase or so? I'd call that a vocal minority.
http://www.redditblog.com/2015/06/happy-10th-birthday-to-us-...
> I don't think she was ever going to get back the community's confidence.
Likely true. Backing down here likely means zero chance of addressing toxic communities in the site for the foreseeable future.
I think you're overlooking the fact that all 36 million (or however many) people that visit Reddit each month are NOT equal....the active content creators are intrinsically more valuable to a community like reddit, simply because they make the community what it is.
When the people that make the content (of which 200k is no insignificant drop) that attracts the other 35 million ad-viewers are unhappy, Reddit MUST do something about, whether this 'minority' is vocal or not.
How are you tying the petitioners back to Reddit accounts to gauge their participation rate on the site?
Logically those who care enough about Reddit to sign the petition would tend to be frequent users of the site and content creators, not casual users who probably don’t care about Reddit’s development at all.
>>So half a percent of the userbase or so? I'd call that a vocal minority.
By that logic, the people who protested during the Civil Rights movement were also a vocal minority. Doesn't make their grievances any less valid.
By that logic, the people who protested during the Civil Rights movement were also a vocal minority. Doesn't make their grievances any less valid.
They were a vocal minority. So's the KKK.
This is why I'm contesting the idea that "a grassroots campaign" is evidence that someone was in the wrong. It's merely evidence that some people had an opinion about the situation.
This is why I'm contesting the idea that "a grassroots campaign" is evidence that someone was in the wrong. It's merely evidence that some people had an opinion about the situation.
What? Do you expect Sam to slag her publicly? When was the last time any corporate board slagged a resigning CEO publicly?
Sheesh.
Sheesh.
There is a difference between slagging - whatever that is - and not gushing corporate BS. How about he be honest instead of just a shill? Sam seems to be good at "playing the game" and this type of thing falls right in line with it.
No -- it's just basic courtesy. Any criticism Mr. Altman has of Ms. Pao, he can share with her privately, and it's not privy to us.
Disagree. Basic courtesy would be "We appreciate all the work Ms. Pao has done and the way in which she handled her resignation as well as her professionalism in the face of many abusive comments from the community."
The glowing "done an amazing job" etc... is typical corporate BS and is the classic back scratching that happens at these upper management levels. As an example when Victoria was fired, there was no statement or acknowledgement despite the publicity - let alone a "Victoria has done an amazing job..." type statement by Pao, Alexis or otherwise.
Again, just reinforcing the manager/worker class division.
The glowing "done an amazing job" etc... is typical corporate BS and is the classic back scratching that happens at these upper management levels. As an example when Victoria was fired, there was no statement or acknowledgement despite the publicity - let alone a "Victoria has done an amazing job..." type statement by Pao, Alexis or otherwise.
Again, just reinforcing the manager/worker class division.
Maybe I missed it, but was there ever any information on why Victoria was fired, or whether Pao actually had anything (or everything) to do with it?
From where I was sitting, it seemed like no one actually learned the full story, which might be confidential or take time to contextualize/safely explain, and everyone immediately threw it on Pao's lap and downvoted any holding maneuvers she and the rest of the staff tried to attempt. It was poorly handled, sure, but it seems like there was a lot of finger pointing before anyone knew what was actually happening. For that matter, do we even know now?
If I'm wrong, though, happy to correct my ideas here. (grammar edit)
From where I was sitting, it seemed like no one actually learned the full story, which might be confidential or take time to contextualize/safely explain, and everyone immediately threw it on Pao's lap and downvoted any holding maneuvers she and the rest of the staff tried to attempt. It was poorly handled, sure, but it seems like there was a lot of finger pointing before anyone knew what was actually happening. For that matter, do we even know now?
If I'm wrong, though, happy to correct my ideas here. (grammar edit)
It was not made public why Victoria was fired. Neither of the parties are talking about it, so generally it's unknown.
The /r/iama mods were not upset that she was fired. They were upset that there was no transition plan in place.
> it seems like there was a lot of finger pointing before anyone knew what was actually happening
There was finger pointing because nobody knew what was happening. Functions that Victoria was performing fell through and — according to the /r/iama mods — jeopardized the functioning of the AMAs that week.
The /r/iama mods were not upset that she was fired. They were upset that there was no transition plan in place.
> it seems like there was a lot of finger pointing before anyone knew what was actually happening
There was finger pointing because nobody knew what was happening. Functions that Victoria was performing fell through and — according to the /r/iama mods — jeopardized the functioning of the AMAs that week.
This is what many/most have overlooked. Victoria was the straw that broke the camel's back. Her firing was indicative of the lack of appreciation / recognition given to the moderator's, and was just another example of the disconnect and (perceived) exploitation of moderator time/effort without the proper support and tools.
> Her firing was indicative of the lack of appreciation / recognition given to the moderator's, and was just another example of the disconnect and (perceived) exploitation of moderator time/effort without the proper support and tools
Which long predated Pao at reddit. But even giving her the responsibility for this, nowhere is the apparent gross incompetence apparently seen by those calling so vociferously for Pao to be fired.
Which long predated Pao at reddit. But even giving her the responsibility for this, nowhere is the apparent gross incompetence apparently seen by those calling so vociferously for Pao to be fired.
> The /r/iama mods were not upset that she was fired. They were upset that there was no transition plan in place.
From what I saw it was both. They shut down over the latter because it left them unable to manage things to their satisfaction, but they seemed to genuinely like her and wanted her to keep her position.
From what I saw it was both. They shut down over the latter because it left them unable to manage things to their satisfaction, but they seemed to genuinely like her and wanted her to keep her position.
I'm not sure how that squares with: "We mods truly feel that she is irreplaceable" or the many other similar statements from the mods.
It might be more that trust is broken and she can't be replaced now.
Yeah, no question there. Things would have gone a lot smoother, explanation or no, if they'd had a plan to carry on without her.
This (deleted) Quora post is the best explanation I've seen thus far: http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--N83GXLMb...
Which was explicitly denied by reddit and is no different than any other piece of baseless speculation.
But it does seem to fit the corporate 'need to monetize' narrative quite well.
The bulk of that 'narrative' is speculative tinfoilhattery as well so of course it fits. See all the handwringing about potential monetization of AMA without anyone ever suggesting any kind of remotely plausible revenue model for it. And again, this is something reddit have addressed directly.
Pao specifically denied this screenshot.
And the US government denied Area 51 existed until 2013. Fire is hot, water is wet, PR is slimy.
There's no way to know whether it's correct or not, use your best judgement. Pao denying anything brings nothing to the table.
There's no way to know whether it's correct or not, use your best judgement. Pao denying anything brings nothing to the table.
Interesting, thanks for sharing.
> whether Pao actually had anything (or everything) to do with it?
Reddit only has around 70 employees, I would find it extremely unlikely a CEO at a company of that size wouldn't have been aware or involved in the decision (if only to rubber stamp it).
Reddit only has around 70 employees, I would find it extremely unlikely a CEO at a company of that size wouldn't have been aware or involved in the decision (if only to rubber stamp it).
For better or worse, this is life for top executives. Example: the president of the US's popularity is correlated with the economy in spite of the fact that they have very little control over it. It's not uncommon for one executive to do something totally reasonable under hard circumstances only to get ousted anyway while the next person gets the credit for their actions.
"It happened on her watch."
"It happened on her watch."
All I know is I'm glad I never had hundreds of thousands of people demand to know the gory details of why I left my job. Unless Victoria wants to share it, it really isn't any of our business.
There isn't any beyond rumour; and those reasons aren't likely to be disclosed for a long time (probably never).
Yes, the whole thing stunk like gamergate imo. I honestly don't care about whatever minor offense pao did, I wanted her to stay just so that the vitriol and misogyny on the front page attacking her would not "win".
Ideologist will act like ideologists, they don't care about the facts, they care about their narrative. If the original narrative isn't strong enough they just fabricate one to legitimize their hate.
So caving in to those groups prevents nothing, it just makes things more toxic. As a tactical move, bringing in Steve Huffman might not have been the worst decision though.
So caving in to those groups prevents nothing, it just makes things more toxic. As a tactical move, bringing in Steve Huffman might not have been the worst decision though.
It's very much like GamerGate. There is an attempt to deflect an overwhelming amount of legitimate criticism by pointing to a few trolls and characterizing all of it as "racist and misogynist".
Exactly. They seem to forget that she's part of a ponzi scheme, slept with married men to get ahead, etc.
Even if it was a bunch of racist/misogynist people, you have to consider that despite the messenger, the message might be valid. That's what being open-minded means.
Even if it was a bunch of racist/misogynist people, you have to consider that despite the messenger, the message might be valid. That's what being open-minded means.
>Exactly. They seem to forget that she's part of a ponzi scheme, slept with married men to get ahead, etc.
For god's sakes, stop it. This blatant sexism and double standards is disgusting. If Ellen were a man, never in a million years would they be expected to bear responsibility for their spouses' misdeeds or attacked for who they slept with (indeed, they'd be getting high-fived for being a "womanizer" or "stud").
For god's sakes, stop it. This blatant sexism and double standards is disgusting. If Ellen were a man, never in a million years would they be expected to bear responsibility for their spouses' misdeeds or attacked for who they slept with (indeed, they'd be getting high-fived for being a "womanizer" or "stud").
There's a difference between a double standard and no standard whatsoever.
I don't even think people care about that stuff. The interesting accounting is on her husband's plate. The KP stuff only affected things at Reddit when Reddit started to do funny things to stories about it.
Really, her Rampart-level impedance mismatch with the community was enough.
Really, her Rampart-level impedance mismatch with the community was enough.
And just like GamerGate the first reply to this is attacking a woman about her sex life.
Well, gamers are gamers - in games everything is permitted as long as it brings victory. Some of that attitude spills over IRL. We always try to find glitches, exploits, cheats and cheese, imbas and so on. We do so in debates and everywhere else.
On the reddit podcast Alexis said it was about wanting celebrities to be a part of the community.
Ellen Pao gives the reason for leaving on /r/self: http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/3cudi0/resignation_tha...
> So why am I leaving? Ultimately, the board asked me to demonstrate higher user growth in the next six months than I believe I can deliver while maintaining reddit’s core principles.
This is believable because there have been odd business decisions under her watch, not just policy decisions. RedditMade, one of the intended revenue-generating models for Reddit, failed while she was interim CEO. Alienating /r/IAMA probably did not help.
> So why am I leaving? Ultimately, the board asked me to demonstrate higher user growth in the next six months than I believe I can deliver while maintaining reddit’s core principles.
This is believable because there have been odd business decisions under her watch, not just policy decisions. RedditMade, one of the intended revenue-generating models for Reddit, failed while she was interim CEO. Alienating /r/IAMA probably did not help.
That makes a lot of sense. I'm sure there was more to it, and the image that she has on Reddit was certainly not helpful, but she wasn't fired because of the backlash from last week and previous, because if that was the case she would have been fired much sooner, but instead she stepped down, by force or not, because she wasn't able to guarantee good revenue for Reddit by past actions and admission of the above.
Reading between the lines and viewing her resignation in the context of what she's had to go through in the past few months, she was harassed out of the job by the user base.
Part of the user base harassed her. Part of the user base raised valid concerns about her performance as CEO in a reasonable, well-argued manner. Part of the user base did both.
Why do people here (in this HN thread) tend to pretend it's either one or the other? When you're speaking about a big amount of people, pretending like they all behave the same way is never a good representation of a situation.
Why do people here (in this HN thread) tend to pretend it's either one or the other? When you're speaking about a big amount of people, pretending like they all behave the same way is never a good representation of a situation.
> Part of the user base did both.
Wait, what? You can raise "reasonable" concerns while harassing someone? Harassment makes raising "valid concerns" not well-argued or reasonable.
Wait, what? You can raise "reasonable" concerns while harassing someone? Harassment makes raising "valid concerns" not well-argued or reasonable.
It's possible to post a perfectly calm, sensible, well-argued comment in one place, and post a spiteful, obscenity-filled rant in another place (or possibly the same place), so, yes. If you want to get fancy, you can use two computers and click "submit" on both simultaneously, so, yes, you can, even for pedantic definitions of "while".
> You can raise "reasonable" concerns while harassing someone?
Yep. You can write two paragraphs of well-articulated critique and then write something like "this bitch should die and rot in hell" in the end.
Yep. You can write two paragraphs of well-articulated critique and then write something like "this bitch should die and rot in hell" in the end.
E. Pao and Brendan Eich are the two polar examples why the word 'harassment' has lost its meaning.
You're not trying to say the two are comparable are you?
In what way are they not?
Objectively? Pao was criticised for her present actions while at the job, Eich because someone pointed at his past.
... and he did a good job for years while she doesn't have much to show. What's your point?
edit: i figure u re saying one was harassed more than the other?
edit: i figure u re saying one was harassed more than the other?
I was just answering your question. Some might think that context matters. As in, what happened to Pao just comes with the job while what happened to Eich was purely personal.
From my reading, this wasn't about harassment. It was about missteps, many of them. Needless to say, her various apologies were not spurred by harassment.
One way to grow reddit would be a gold for referral program.
[deleted]
This entire debacle and the 'communities' (the small vocal part that acted horribly) response pretty much hammered the last nail into the coffin for me when it comes to reddit.
With the exception of a few niche subreddits and the (few) incredibly moderated major subreddit's the whole place has become a negative pit with horses beaten so badly to death Findus put them in their lasagna.
Twitter often feels the same way as well (I'm pretty much at the unfollow as soon as someone acts like an idiot stage now).
Ironically the only social network I don't hate is Facebook and that's because I have about 20 people I consider true friends on there, all signal no noise.
With the exception of a few niche subreddits and the (few) incredibly moderated major subreddit's the whole place has become a negative pit with horses beaten so badly to death Findus put them in their lasagna.
Twitter often feels the same way as well (I'm pretty much at the unfollow as soon as someone acts like an idiot stage now).
Ironically the only social network I don't hate is Facebook and that's because I have about 20 people I consider true friends on there, all signal no noise.
Nice comment, in the last couple of days I also have warmed again to Facebook.
It's safe - I know all the people we can still have arguments but they are well behaved ones.
It's safe - I know all the people we can still have arguments but they are well behaved ones.
Agreed. It's why I stay off Reddit.
[deleted]
I agree 100%. Except for certain sub-reddits, I go to reddit when I want to see what the idiots think.
There was a time when I would read a news subreddit and reminded myself that every headline should be understood exactly in reverse. I stopped doing that because it's hard to keep up the mental filter.
I think the problem is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September - reddit is mostly made up of stupid and bored teenagers.
There was a time when I would read a news subreddit and reminded myself that every headline should be understood exactly in reverse. I stopped doing that because it's hard to keep up the mental filter.
I think the problem is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September - reddit is mostly made up of stupid and bored teenagers.
Facebook's shortcomings on privacy keep me away.
I'm glad that most of the communities I'm part of sat out of this mess.
The top subs I read and/or post to are /r/asktransgender, /r/ainbow, /r/comicbooks, and /r/kamenrider. None of them would've benefited from taking part in any kind of blackout (the first two of those function as support groups and any blackout could seriously hurt someone who needs help, the third is a mid-sized fandom where people care more about talking about their hobby than staging a juvenile protest, and the fourth is an extremely niche fandom so small that nobody would notice a blackout).
The top subs I read and/or post to are /r/asktransgender, /r/ainbow, /r/comicbooks, and /r/kamenrider. None of them would've benefited from taking part in any kind of blackout (the first two of those function as support groups and any blackout could seriously hurt someone who needs help, the third is a mid-sized fandom where people care more about talking about their hobby than staging a juvenile protest, and the fourth is an extremely niche fandom so small that nobody would notice a blackout).
Super good article about this:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/reddit-is-a-shrine-to-...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/reddit-is-a-shrine-to-...
That article is good in that it calls out the obviously bad stuff pretty well (and some of that stuff is pretty fucking vile tbh) but it doesn't really address that a biggish minority of the users are just not that nice, take out all the porn, the trolls and the 'dank memes' and the few good subreddits and you are left with a group roughly split between 'nice enough people' and 'get the fuck away from me'.
Of course a cynic would say that reddit is just a reflection of the society we live in and that might be right but it's also a reflection of the society we live in where there are few consequences to been a complete dick (I think if you could punch someone through a computer screen reddit might be a better place).
I've been on reddit >7 years and I'd love to say that it was 'better in the old days' but honestly I don't think it was I just think I've reached a point in my life where I don't feel the need to surround myself with that crap.
Of course a cynic would say that reddit is just a reflection of the society we live in and that might be right but it's also a reflection of the society we live in where there are few consequences to been a complete dick (I think if you could punch someone through a computer screen reddit might be a better place).
I've been on reddit >7 years and I'd love to say that it was 'better in the old days' but honestly I don't think it was I just think I've reached a point in my life where I don't feel the need to surround myself with that crap.
I think it's unfair to compare your un-curated Reddit experience - which you admit is pretty good in a few niche subs - with your highly curated Facebook feed.
It's like saying that food in New York is awful because you reached into a trashcan and found a rancid bagel, but is awesome in Chicago because you looked up the nicest restaurant and spent $500 on a meal there.
It's like saying that food in New York is awful because you reached into a trashcan and found a rancid bagel, but is awesome in Chicago because you looked up the nicest restaurant and spent $500 on a meal there.
Not really a matter of fairness or unfairness more an explanation of why I prefer Facebook to Reddit in that it allows that curation.
That doesn't really hold water. You can choose which subs you're subscribed to.
Reddit also allows curation; you've just used the curation tools on Facebook and have not used those on Reddit.
"With the exception of a few niche subreddits and the (few) incredibly moderated major subreddit's"
Sometimes I don't recognize what y'all are talking about, and I almost want to defend reddit, then I remember: I've long since adjusted my reddit to be virtually nothing but niche. My largest is ~320,000, but it's just a "Deals" reddit. I've got two at 150,000, both very focused. And it goes down from there.
I'd hardly know this was going on except /r/blog is essentially forced on to your reddit front page.
It's just like Usenet was... subscribe to politics.vitriol.hate.anger and rec.sports.flame, and yeah, you're gonna get idiots. Subscribe to comp.lang.niche_language, get almost nothing but signal. Times never really change.
Sometimes I don't recognize what y'all are talking about, and I almost want to defend reddit, then I remember: I've long since adjusted my reddit to be virtually nothing but niche. My largest is ~320,000, but it's just a "Deals" reddit. I've got two at 150,000, both very focused. And it goes down from there.
I'd hardly know this was going on except /r/blog is essentially forced on to your reddit front page.
It's just like Usenet was... subscribe to politics.vitriol.hate.anger and rec.sports.flame, and yeah, you're gonna get idiots. Subscribe to comp.lang.niche_language, get almost nothing but signal. Times never really change.
What's wrong with Reddit is that politics.vitriol.hate.anger has a very large presence in the default subreddits.
I strongly believe causality runs the other way... becoming a default reddit puts you into an Eternal September that no community could possibly survive.
But in the end, the result is the same.
But in the end, the result is the same.
AskScience is a default sub, I think, and they've survived alright. Interestingly, AskHistorians asked to not be a default sub-reddit for precisely the reasons you've given.
I think you are very correct.
Maybe one of the nice things about UseNet was that you could only be signed up for a forum that you explicitly looked for? That at least forces the trolls to go out of their way to interfere with general-interest sections, not just go after them out of laziness.
Maybe one of the nice things about UseNet was that you could only be signed up for a forum that you explicitly looked for? That at least forces the trolls to go out of their way to interfere with general-interest sections, not just go after them out of laziness.
What's wrong with Reddit is the "default subreddit" concept and the difficulty of subreddit discovery. Building in some form of interest based subreddit discovery would go a long way to de-emphasising defaults and (eventually) mitigate much of the vitriol.
There is also something to be said for educating users on the effects of anonymity.
There is also something to be said for educating users on the effects of anonymity.
I think it's a little unfair towards Reddit. Any community large enough will be taken over by trolls if nothing else for the fact that they're the ones making the most noise. Subreddits are perfect way to contain those people away from others since the majority won't be posting in niché subreddits, and those few who do can be moderated.
If anything might be a lesson on community design it might be to put up a few more "barriers" between subreddits and the general population and think about how to control interaction between them.
If anything might be a lesson on community design it might be to put up a few more "barriers" between subreddits and the general population and think about how to control interaction between them.
Agreed. Reddit is, unfortunately, a cesspool now for many reasons.
Pretty much had to happen. To say that the Victoria situation was mishandled is a severe understatement. I wonder what will happen with communities like FPH and others (that have since moved to Voat). Will reddit lessen their censorship efforts?
Time will tell. IMO, the problem at hand is that reddit is still trying to make advertisers their bread and butter. And advertisers will never be overly attracted to censorship-free spaces.
Even though I may not agree with her aggressively politically-correct agenda (nor does most of reddit), I think it may have been a smart move from a business dev. perspective.
Time will tell. IMO, the problem at hand is that reddit is still trying to make advertisers their bread and butter. And advertisers will never be overly attracted to censorship-free spaces.
Even though I may not agree with her aggressively politically-correct agenda (nor does most of reddit), I think it may have been a smart move from a business dev. perspective.
> Will reddit lessen their censorship efforts?
I doubt it. Garbage like FPH should have been dealt with much sooner. The reason there was a backlash about that at all, imo, is because they let it drag out too long. Reddit was the friend-parent for so long that when it finally came time to enforce some discipline, it came as a shock and felt like a betrayal.
I doubt it. Garbage like FPH should have been dealt with much sooner. The reason there was a backlash about that at all, imo, is because they let it drag out too long. Reddit was the friend-parent for so long that when it finally came time to enforce some discipline, it came as a shock and felt like a betrayal.
Erm, why should there be any "discipline" at all?
Discussion sites (HN included) exist solely due to their users' laziness for using and/or creating better Free decentralized solutions and ensuing network effects. In exchange for this ease of use, the site inserts an epsilon of advertising and censorship. This is the extent of their value proposition.
Eventually business/legal skinjobs take over, mistake the community for an owned golden goose, and ramp up the amount of advertising/censorship. The illusion of openness is shattered. The users revolt and move to the next green pasture.
Discussion sites (HN included) exist solely due to their users' laziness for using and/or creating better Free decentralized solutions and ensuing network effects. In exchange for this ease of use, the site inserts an epsilon of advertising and censorship. This is the extent of their value proposition.
Eventually business/legal skinjobs take over, mistake the community for an owned golden goose, and ramp up the amount of advertising/censorship. The illusion of openness is shattered. The users revolt and move to the next green pasture.
> Erm, why should there be any "discipline" at all?
Because communities need moderators. A free for all is anarchy; enough shitbags will ruin any particular community. I've moderated a small forum, and that was a headache when I just had two trolls to deal with, and I still failed at it - people left because of those two people, enough of them that the forum is basically dead now.
On a more cynical/business perspective, if enough users leave and if enough negative press is printed, your business loses money.
Because communities need moderators. A free for all is anarchy; enough shitbags will ruin any particular community. I've moderated a small forum, and that was a headache when I just had two trolls to deal with, and I still failed at it - people left because of those two people, enough of them that the forum is basically dead now.
On a more cynical/business perspective, if enough users leave and if enough negative press is printed, your business loses money.
Sure, but the premise of Reddit is that mods can moderate as they see fit. Admins hadn't really been involved in shaping the content as much as keeping things running and legal.
Where is the limit? Coontown, does that get banned? Sexwithdogs? Incest? SRS? They seemed to hide behind the vail of harassment and not peak behind the curtain of what reddit really is. Reddits problem is they said anything goes, and then years later they saw what they created.
> Where is the limit? Coontown, does that get banned? Sexwithdogs? Incest? SRS?
Cynically? When they start making /r/all.
My own personal opinion is that FPH was an embarrassment to reddit because it had gained enough traction that it was visible outside of its own little bubble, so they nuked it and took a few other inconsequential subs with it to provide plausible cover that they weren't just straight up censoring FPH for the sake of the brand image.
Cynically? When they start making /r/all.
My own personal opinion is that FPH was an embarrassment to reddit because it had gained enough traction that it was visible outside of its own little bubble, so they nuked it and took a few other inconsequential subs with it to provide plausible cover that they weren't just straight up censoring FPH for the sake of the brand image.
> Reddits problem is they said anything goes, and then years later they saw what they created
Isn't that basically what I said?
> Where is the limit? Coontown, does that get banned? Sexwithdogs? Incest? SRS?
I genuinely do not know, but they need to find that limit, they need to be transparent about how they came to that decision, and they need to be consistent and fair about applying it to subreddits.
Like I said above, they tolerated it for too long, and then swung the hammer down hard. If you don't house train your dog for three years, and then start screaming at it for peeing on the rug, the dog isn't going to react well.
Isn't that basically what I said?
> Where is the limit? Coontown, does that get banned? Sexwithdogs? Incest? SRS?
I genuinely do not know, but they need to find that limit, they need to be transparent about how they came to that decision, and they need to be consistent and fair about applying it to subreddits.
Like I said above, they tolerated it for too long, and then swung the hammer down hard. If you don't house train your dog for three years, and then start screaming at it for peeing on the rug, the dog isn't going to react well.
Banning a number of subreddits that you can count with the fingers on one hand, and zero users, is swinging the hammer down hard? What would be a light touch, then?
FWIW tons of users have been shadowbanned for relatively light infringements (posting about TPP on /r/news, posting negative news items about Pao on various subreddits) since the 5 sub-reddits were shut down.
The limit is when the hate speech goes beyond online posts and starts encouraging harassment in real life. Simple as that. FPH crossed that line.
[deleted]
True, although it's important to note that there are still many communities that are much worse than FPH on reddit.
The issue is that these communities aren't frequently in the top of /r/all and causing outside issues. FPH just got too big and too obnoxious to ignore.
This is why it got so messy when they got rid of FPH. They did a MISERABLE job of defining the line on what is and is not appropriate. If you're going to censor, it better be a well-defined line.
You're talking as if Reddit is doing them a favor by providing them a platform. With your idea of "discipline", Reddit would never become the giant that it is today.
This ignores that advertisement is a good amount of revenue for Reddit (it took is over $8M last year from advertising)[1]. In any case, there definitely needs to exist a balance, and the announcement on Reddit makes no pretense that they'll allow any community like FPH to come back or exist going forward. Even if they didn't need to rely on advertisement, it's better for the community overall to have communities that are hurtful go somewhere else. In my opinion, if FPH etc. are fine at Voat, stay there.
1: http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/18/reddit-charity/
1: http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/18/reddit-charity/
> “It became clear that the board and I had a different view on the ability of Reddit to grow this year,” Ms. Pao said in an interview. “Because of that, it made sense to bring someone in that shared the same view.”
Does this mean that the board thought Pao was being too aggressive in pushing growth or not aggressive enough? If it's the latter then the Reddit community is in for a shock.
Does this mean that the board thought Pao was being too aggressive in pushing growth or not aggressive enough? If it's the latter then the Reddit community is in for a shock.
Not aggressive enough:
> So why am I leaving? Ultimately, the board asked me to demonstrate higher user growth in the next six months than I believe I can deliver while maintaining reddit’s core principles.
http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/3cudi0/resignation_tha...
> So why am I leaving? Ultimately, the board asked me to demonstrate higher user growth in the next six months than I believe I can deliver while maintaining reddit’s core principles.
http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/3cudi0/resignation_tha...
I can see how growing users organically was going to be tough, especially with the new community guidelines:
1) Pushing commercial IamAs was going to have a two-fold effect: increasing revenue and increasing traffic. Traffic would have basically come from Fortune 500 brands paying to drive traffic to Reddit via TV, online ads, etc. Companies today drive users to their own sites or to branded channels on YouTube or Facebook but not to Reddit. Sponsored IAmAs might have helped create a new stream of mainstream users but would have generated a large backlash with the moderators and the current rules on IamA (non-commercial).
2) Banning morally dubious but wildly popular content - The Fappening BROKE reddit. It drove so much traffic and introduced reddit to so many new users that by holding themselves to now a different standard of community policing, they are also banning from content that drives a lot of traffic growth. Celebrity, gossip and scandal brings all the eyeballs and $$$ to the yard.
The only logical place for the type of growth they are looking for is mobile hence the push for more video content and anything that capitalizes on how people consume content now-a-days.
1) Pushing commercial IamAs was going to have a two-fold effect: increasing revenue and increasing traffic. Traffic would have basically come from Fortune 500 brands paying to drive traffic to Reddit via TV, online ads, etc. Companies today drive users to their own sites or to branded channels on YouTube or Facebook but not to Reddit. Sponsored IAmAs might have helped create a new stream of mainstream users but would have generated a large backlash with the moderators and the current rules on IamA (non-commercial).
2) Banning morally dubious but wildly popular content - The Fappening BROKE reddit. It drove so much traffic and introduced reddit to so many new users that by holding themselves to now a different standard of community policing, they are also banning from content that drives a lot of traffic growth. Celebrity, gossip and scandal brings all the eyeballs and $$$ to the yard.
The only logical place for the type of growth they are looking for is mobile hence the push for more video content and anything that capitalizes on how people consume content now-a-days.
#2 reminds me how reddit clamped down on the unauthorized nude photos, and then shamed the community for its behavior (correctly, IMHO). But then someone asked if reddit was going to refund all the gold purchased during and because of it, and AFAIK the admins just stopped talking about that. (If they did any more than say "that's a tough call" I missed it.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/2foivo/every_man_is_r...
It's tough to have a conscience when you are getting funding for violating it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/2foivo/every_man_is_r...
It's tough to have a conscience when you are getting funding for violating it.
As someone who frequents only a couple of subs on Reddit (which were completely insulated from this fiasco), I have no idea why people were so pissed off.
So she made a bad decision. Big fcking deal.
"She's killing the community!". Well, if your idea of 'community' is making public rape threads (while you use a throwaway) and threaten to kill a person, then maybe your community deserves to die.
Reddit has a lot* of good. I've been there long enough to see it. But it has a lot of absolute low-lifes clogging its sewers as well.
So she made a bad decision. Big fcking deal.
"She's killing the community!". Well, if your idea of 'community' is making public rape threads (while you use a throwaway) and threaten to kill a person, then maybe your community deserves to die.
Reddit has a lot* of good. I've been there long enough to see it. But it has a lot of absolute low-lifes clogging its sewers as well.
[deleted]
I think users were pissed off because of the lack of transparency. No one knew what the admins were deleting. It was up to the community to find out which subreddits were banned and why. Further the admins never logically explained their decisions, for example, to ban fph over srs. From the outside it seemed like an arbitrary power trip. And for what? Reddit's moderation system is perfect: let users form their own communities and moderate them as they wish. Some of the communities will be terrible but that's the beauty of it; you don't have to go to them. This system is what let reddit grow to the size it is today. While hackernews takes a different approach (moderation at the admin level isn't unusual) that is only manageable for a site of a smaller size.
It seems to me that HN is more like a single subreddit than Reddit as a whole. The admin action on HN feels more like mod action on Reddit, because there is no larger umbrella above HN.
[deleted]
Being the CEO of reddit is a political position. And Ellen Pao has too much drama in her life to be a good politician. Losing a sexual harassment case, marrying a crook who stole millions...those are events that don't happen by accident.
Yup, she did awesome Sam. Especially recently. (Makes me wonder how bad one of these people would have to screw up in order NOT to get the happy handwave as they're booted.)
I didn't even know who she was until "the last few months." Which have been a parade of increasingly-negative press and idiotic behavior. And that's from reading Reuters and the NY Times -- I don't even use Reddit.
---
Sam Altman, a member of Reddit’s board... “Ellen has done a phenomenal job, especially in the last few months,” he said.
I didn't even know who she was until "the last few months." Which have been a parade of increasingly-negative press and idiotic behavior. And that's from reading Reuters and the NY Times -- I don't even use Reddit.
---
Sam Altman, a member of Reddit’s board... “Ellen has done a phenomenal job, especially in the last few months,” he said.
>Makes me wonder how bad one of these people would have to screw up in order NOT to get the happy handwave as they're booted.
Meh. It's traditional. There's nothing to be gained from running down your outgoing CEO. Besides, they hired her, so the worse she looks the worse their own judgement looks.
Meh. It's traditional. There's nothing to be gained from running down your outgoing CEO. Besides, they hired her, so the worse she looks the worse their own judgement looks.
The one take away I have from this situation is that we have an honesty problem. People criticize Reddit as a platform of hate and vitrol, but as in reality this only partially describes the entirety. They complain that people on the internet are too free to speak their minds, but perhaps this is a reflection on our society a place where honesty and the free exchange of ideas is discouraged.
Response to material: http://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/reddit-is-a-shrine-to-...
Food for thought: https://www.facebook.com/psiljamaki/posts/10153334440110516?...
Response to material: http://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/reddit-is-a-shrine-to-...
Food for thought: https://www.facebook.com/psiljamaki/posts/10153334440110516?...
> “The attacks were worse on Ellen because she is a woman,”
@sama, how do you explain this claim without ignoring the community's enormous support for Victoria Taylor?
@sama, how do you explain this claim without ignoring the community's enormous support for Victoria Taylor?
Victoria rarely expressed any of her own opinions, especially controversial ones. She was a facilitator for interviews.
Sam has to say this or else risk Ellen suing him too. I wouldn't read into anything he says more than that.
Seems like Reddit hired Ellen without checking up her references at the previous job, ie. Kleiner, and now they harvest the same results - insufficient performance and high scandals.
(note: there is nothing about her sex here - just read the case materials and you'll see that she behaved just like a jerk at Kleiner - for God sake she complained there that some assistant was using company fax to send brain scans of dying from cancer mother)
(note: there is nothing about her sex here - just read the case materials and you'll see that she behaved just like a jerk at Kleiner - for God sake she complained there that some assistant was using company fax to send brain scans of dying from cancer mother)
If you read the case materials, you discover her peers and superiors generally rated her performance as exceeding expectations.
i did read the materials and discovered that they clearly understood that a rattlesnake they've got on their hands and were very cautious to not get that rattlesnake angry (and thus in particular very carefully worded reviews with nowhere close to real "exceeding expectations") and were just waiting for her to leave on her own ( they even paid her to do that if I remember correctly - ie. she was more worth to them being gone than working for them )
It's interesting how fast people go from hating[1] /u/kn0thing to love[2] him again
[1]: https://np.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/3bwgjf/riama...
[2]: https://pay.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cucye/an_ol...
[1]: https://np.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/3bwgjf/riama...
[2]: https://pay.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cucye/an_ol...
And then Ellen echoed his statement: https://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/3cudi0/resignation_th...
what is happening, not used to reading positive interactions on reddit with that account...
I think it has to do with how mob psychology latches onto whatever is bright and shiny. So a character with both pros and cons in the mass narrative is able to be demonized one day and lionized the next, based on whichever trait sparkled more that day.
I think it has a lot to do with how he handled it. He immediately came out after making that comment and said he screwed up big time and was really sorry. People took that as sincere, and I did too, since it was really only a single comment.
Isn't it already too late? How can a new captain save the sinking ship? The new CEO would be standing on a double edged sword. If he reverses course immediately claiming reddit an absolute free-speech enviromnent, the people who wanted a safe-space will be disillusioned, if he doesn't the rest of the users will keep seeking for another platform.
I'd suggest that the 'safe spacers' are on the wrong site.
When anything gets as big as reddit there will always be unsavory things posted - flying the banner of 'free speech' for so long and then suddenly doing a 180 is what has made people annoyed
When anything gets as big as reddit there will always be unsavory things posted - flying the banner of 'free speech' for so long and then suddenly doing a 180 is what has made people annoyed
The site banned posting personal information has enacted various community standards long before anything that happened recently. There is a pretty clear history, intent, and common sense around banning communities from using the to organize harassment and bringing other vile things into the world. They could have communicated that better, but there is no 180 to speak of.
It doesnt really matter, reddit users move as packs, and they have been divided, so there's a danger the entire place will become deserted.
Pushing hard on moderator tools. In the short term, Reddit should watch its moderators, look for usage patterns, and build systems to reduce moderation effort. In the long term, Reddit should develop artificial moderation (AM).
Reddit is the natural place for the discipline of artificial moderation (using AI / ML to help moderate public forums) to develop. For example, an automated "argument detection" bot could intervene when two participants start going down the warpath, acting like a janitor who pushes two rowdy students apart when they start fighting. Or, a bot could detect when a post consists entirely of one participant insulting another and take appropriate action.
These are difficult problems, but Reddit is sitting on a goldmine of training data in the form of the human-generated moderation logs. Reddit should either hire the talent to develop such systems or partner with those who already have (Google / IBM / ...).
Reddit is the natural place for the discipline of artificial moderation (using AI / ML to help moderate public forums) to develop. For example, an automated "argument detection" bot could intervene when two participants start going down the warpath, acting like a janitor who pushes two rowdy students apart when they start fighting. Or, a bot could detect when a post consists entirely of one participant insulting another and take appropriate action.
These are difficult problems, but Reddit is sitting on a goldmine of training data in the form of the human-generated moderation logs. Reddit should either hire the talent to develop such systems or partner with those who already have (Google / IBM / ...).
[deleted]
Reddit would do well to hire someone with experience in the association management field. Those folks specialize in managing fractious communities such that the volunteers not only stick around, they're happy to pay for the privilege.
But where are they going to find someone like that? Guess it's time to put an ad on Craigslist.
Ellen Pao was a scapegoat. She was the face of a lot of changes that didn't sit well with the community. Now the people clamor, they remove her, and the people are happy again.
Notice how they didn't mention anything about reverting the bad changes to the website. ;)
Notice how they didn't mention anything about reverting the bad changes to the website. ;)
So... who is replacing Steve at Hipmunk?
Announcement on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cucye/an_ol...
Friday afternoon, eh? Someone took a PR class in college!
-- Top Comment on that thread
-- Top Comment on that thread
Will the anti-corporate brigades in these large community-driven sites make turning a profit impossible in the long-run?
I don't think so, because the degree of "anti corporate" sentiment varies dramatically from sub to sub. The thing is, it almost doesn't even make sense to talk about "The Reddit Community" as though it was any one, unified, cohesive whole, because it largely isn't.
Agreed, but there's a subset of the reddit community that passionately rallies against comprehensive attempts to make the site more commercial in nature. And now, with this resignation, they're likely to feel emboldened.
No, the corporations will simply adapt and learn to play the anti-corporate tune to turn a profit.
See Continuum, American Odyssey, Mr. Robot, The Lego Movie, and so on. You want an anti-corporate message and you are willing to pay for it? There are corporations ready to fulfill your need :-)
See Continuum, American Odyssey, Mr. Robot, The Lego Movie, and so on. You want an anti-corporate message and you are willing to pay for it? There are corporations ready to fulfill your need :-)
I'm sorry to see it go down like this. Redditors treatment of her got really ugly (/r/all after the FPH banning was shocking) over the past few weeks, and it's disheartening to see people's bad behavior rewarded.
What about her bad behavior which affected many redditors?
As a CEO she chose to take actions in manner and method that allowed things to spiral out of control. It was her job to control the message and blowback. She failed at her job, therefore she needed to go. It is really that simple.
Wow, I applaud this development!
Now, if Victoria is coming back too - that's would be 200% right move for reddit!
Now, if Victoria is coming back too - that's would be 200% right move for reddit!
Converting large-scale investor dollars into compelling returns using the world's most entitled and monomaniacal message board: not, in fact, an easy job. Pretty sure very few of us could do it either.
I think the take away may be that Ellen Pao is not the executive that someone's hype machine purports her to be.
I will be interested to see if anything changes regarding the management of Reddit or at least the communities opinion of it. I wonder if the community will chalk this up as a win and suddenly forget all of the reasons they have been complaining which really have nothing to do with Pao in the first place.
After seeing what Ellen went through, I think Sam will need to raise some more funds to offer a significant pay bump to entice even mediocre talent to fill her void.
I doubt it. In a lot of ways she created her own problems.
What they need is someone who focuses on the business side. People on reddit shouldn't care who the CEO is, and they wouldn't if they didn't feel the CEO was making the site worse.
What they need is someone who focuses on the business side. People on reddit shouldn't care who the CEO is, and they wouldn't if they didn't feel the CEO was making the site worse.
Absolutely correct. There's no way that any moderately-intelligent woman would ever take the job now.
Perhaps a fairly dim, elderly man who doesn't know much about social media and therefore is immune to the storms of reddit.
Perhaps a fairly dim, elderly man who doesn't know much about social media and therefore is immune to the storms of reddit.
So can someone summarize the ordeal?
[deleted]
She thought she could enforce her agenda onto an online community and it would all go well. Results as expected by anyone who has ever been part or observed an online community.
Ellen Pao has been CEO of Reddit for 8 months. A month or so ago, Reddit banned several subreddits for organized harassment behavior. Since Pao had recently lost a gender discrimination lawsuit, aspects of the reddit community pattern-matched the occurances as "Social Justice Warrioring" and engaged in an organized hate-fest on Pao.
About a week ago, Victoria, the admin who coordinated Reddit's "ask me anything" subreddits (interviews with celebrities for the most part) was fired for unknown reasons. The optics of this were handled poorly, and the community got enraged. Since the buck stopped with Pao, and she was already weakened due to the backlash on the earlier issue, this second backlash revealed her to be politically compromised, and thus untenable as CEO.
Edit: corrected tenure
About a week ago, Victoria, the admin who coordinated Reddit's "ask me anything" subreddits (interviews with celebrities for the most part) was fired for unknown reasons. The optics of this were handled poorly, and the community got enraged. Since the buck stopped with Pao, and she was already weakened due to the backlash on the earlier issue, this second backlash revealed her to be politically compromised, and thus untenable as CEO.
Edit: corrected tenure
It wasn't just the 'optics'. They screwed up everything about it. They didn't have a replacement. They didn't have a transition period. They didn't have a clue how much work Victoria was doing. They didn't realize how significant she was to a number of core subreddits. They didn't realize how important those core subreddits were. They thought that none of these things mattered, and that a mere email address pointed to the rest of the reddit team could 'pick up the slack'.
They didn't just screw up the optics - they royally screwed up, and then tried to laugh it off.
They didn't just screw up the optics - they royally screwed up, and then tried to laugh it off.
> Reddit banned several subreddits for organized harassment behavior
While leaving up other subreddits that also have organized harassment behavior. If they had cleaned out all the trash at once, the community impact probably would have been minimal.
While leaving up other subreddits that also have organized harassment behavior. If they had cleaned out all the trash at once, the community impact probably would have been minimal.
> While leaving up other subreddits that also have organized harassment behavior.
I think "organized harassment" here means, people form the banned subs reached out to harass people in the real life, outside of reddit. Not just posting vile stuff in a sub.
I think "organized harassment" here means, people form the banned subs reached out to harass people in the real life, outside of reddit. Not just posting vile stuff in a sub.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. There have been doxxings and harassment campaigns from plenty of subreddits, and only a few were removed.
Pao was CEO for only 8 months until now, she even says so in her resignation note.
http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/3cudi0/resignation_tha...
http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/3cudi0/resignation_tha...
[deleted]
> this second backlash revealed her to be politically compromised
could you elaborate on this?
could you elaborate on this?
In a very short period of time, a very vocal and visible part of the reddit community basically took over the site lashing out against Pao (you couldn't go there without reading about how Pao was ruining reddit). This happened once with the subreddit bannings, and then couple weeks later with Victoria's firing.
This powerful section of the reddit community's opinion of Pao is basically ruined at this point, and any further perceived transgressions on her part would no doubt lead to even larger, more damaging backlashes.
It seems the protests have had their intended effect and demonstrated to reddit's management that the community is essentially what drives the site's success (or failure) and that they need to keep this in mind when forming plans for the future. Keeping Pao on as CEO was only fracturing the community, so she had to go.
This powerful section of the reddit community's opinion of Pao is basically ruined at this point, and any further perceived transgressions on her part would no doubt lead to even larger, more damaging backlashes.
It seems the protests have had their intended effect and demonstrated to reddit's management that the community is essentially what drives the site's success (or failure) and that they need to keep this in mind when forming plans for the future. Keeping Pao on as CEO was only fracturing the community, so she had to go.
The community turned against her. To illustrate, her apology thread appears to have no further comments from her (making Pao appear aloof), but in reality she did make several mature and understanding comments in the thread, but they each accumulated thousands of downvoted and were buried. Simply put, she became a lightning rod and people's animosity toward her meant that she could no longer be effective as the executive of a community-driven organization.
https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cbo4m/we_ap...
https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cbo4m/we_ap...
Whole situation started when reddit closed a few hateful subreddits (r/fatpeoplehate, and a few racist ones as well); a very vocal backlash came from the contingent of reddit that believes the admins have no right to 'regulate free speech'. The site was brigaded and flooded with anti-Pao posts (who they saw as their villain) which then turned to racist 'Chairman Pao' posts, posts with her and a nazi flag, etc.
After a while this calmed down.
A week ago reddit fired/let go Victoria, who was the liaison for hundreds of celebrities and reddit, often transcribing entire IAmAs (community interviews). Victoria's departure was immediate and caused a lot of planned IAmAs to be postponed or canceled, since she was the go-between (and in some cases the only point of contact).
A few major moderators were angry and posted about their displeasure at Victoria's departure and the general lack of interface admins have with moderators. This snowballed in to a 'blackout' of many major subreddits for about a day (longer for a few of the smaller ones). One of the admins posted a 'Popcorn tastes good...' comment when people asked him what he thought of the anger; which fanned the flames. The major protests died down after about a day or two, but a few subreddits spawned for the specific purpose of continuing the protest and to oust Pao. These people brigaded most posts about Pao and promoted the petition link calling for her removal. The anti-Pao rhetoric continued at full force (with the usual racist 'Chairman Pao' meme, nazi flags, posts of her photo to a subreddit called 'punchablefaces').
In summary: Pao and admins were wrong to not communicated with the moderators more, especially when it came to Victoria; the original protest had legitimate legs but then devolved in to the same 4chan-esque bile that happens any time reddit makes some sort of administrative move. That awful bile of protest is what kept the flames going which led to Pao stepping down.
After a while this calmed down.
A week ago reddit fired/let go Victoria, who was the liaison for hundreds of celebrities and reddit, often transcribing entire IAmAs (community interviews). Victoria's departure was immediate and caused a lot of planned IAmAs to be postponed or canceled, since she was the go-between (and in some cases the only point of contact).
A few major moderators were angry and posted about their displeasure at Victoria's departure and the general lack of interface admins have with moderators. This snowballed in to a 'blackout' of many major subreddits for about a day (longer for a few of the smaller ones). One of the admins posted a 'Popcorn tastes good...' comment when people asked him what he thought of the anger; which fanned the flames. The major protests died down after about a day or two, but a few subreddits spawned for the specific purpose of continuing the protest and to oust Pao. These people brigaded most posts about Pao and promoted the petition link calling for her removal. The anti-Pao rhetoric continued at full force (with the usual racist 'Chairman Pao' meme, nazi flags, posts of her photo to a subreddit called 'punchablefaces').
In summary: Pao and admins were wrong to not communicated with the moderators more, especially when it came to Victoria; the original protest had legitimate legs but then devolved in to the same 4chan-esque bile that happens any time reddit makes some sort of administrative move. That awful bile of protest is what kept the flames going which led to Pao stepping down.
Two major publicly visible actions:
1) Banning of several 'hate' subreddits especially /r/FatPeopleHate for harassment. The harassment was kind of dubious, as while they certainly weren't saying nice things, it didn't seem like they were actively doing 'raids' or doxing. At the same time several significantly worse, but smaller, subreddits remained online (gore, racism, sexism, etc) More info: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/39bzdf/why_wa...
2) Removal of several employees, likely because they wouldn't/didn't relocate to SF. Notably Victoria, who coordinated numerous AMAs with key people, and her removal completely cut off communications with several planned AMAs, including several that were live. More info: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3bxduw/why_wa...
Both events were followed by a large amount of anti-Pao hate and general massive amounts of spammy posts for 2-3 days taking over the front page of reddit. The first instance also involved lots of new subreddits that would get banned, before another dozen would appear in an endless game of whack-a-mole.
1) Banning of several 'hate' subreddits especially /r/FatPeopleHate for harassment. The harassment was kind of dubious, as while they certainly weren't saying nice things, it didn't seem like they were actively doing 'raids' or doxing. At the same time several significantly worse, but smaller, subreddits remained online (gore, racism, sexism, etc) More info: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/39bzdf/why_wa...
2) Removal of several employees, likely because they wouldn't/didn't relocate to SF. Notably Victoria, who coordinated numerous AMAs with key people, and her removal completely cut off communications with several planned AMAs, including several that were live. More info: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3bxduw/why_wa...
Both events were followed by a large amount of anti-Pao hate and general massive amounts of spammy posts for 2-3 days taking over the front page of reddit. The first instance also involved lots of new subreddits that would get banned, before another dozen would appear in an endless game of whack-a-mole.
The harassment thing was not at all dubious: https://archive.is/wP0uB FPH was a nasty cesspit that had been leaking into the rest of Reddit for a while, going into other communities and targeting women who dared to post photos of themselves without meeting their standard of beauty.
What you linked to is indeed completely dubious:
1) not targeting nor contacting anybody; not harassment.
2) discussion of another reddit post is not harassment. there was a single comment made on the post which could be considered harassing.
3) victim willingly made comment. in addition, said victim is against the banning of subreddits.
4) I have no idea how this could be considered harassment.
5) see #2
6) you can not harass a dead person
7) see #1
8) see #6
9) see #1
10) AN ACTUAL INSTANCE OF HARASSMENT! A single instance of harassing behavior does not define an entire community.
11) The entire incident was a fabrication by a troll.
1) not targeting nor contacting anybody; not harassment.
2) discussion of another reddit post is not harassment. there was a single comment made on the post which could be considered harassing.
3) victim willingly made comment. in addition, said victim is against the banning of subreddits.
4) I have no idea how this could be considered harassment.
5) see #2
6) you can not harass a dead person
7) see #1
8) see #6
9) see #1
10) AN ACTUAL INSTANCE OF HARASSMENT! A single instance of harassing behavior does not define an entire community.
11) The entire incident was a fabrication by a troll.
I think this is more of a rorschach test for how forgiving a person you are toward harassment in general than it is a refutation of the presented examples. It is tedious to look at all the links, but allow me to illustrate with my interpretations of those same comments:
1) It is targeted toward the reader in second person narrative, frankly informing them that they are surrounded by people that hate them in everyday life. The tone is not sarcastic or satirical. It has literally no other purpose than directing genuinely intended emotional abuse at real people.
2) It's discussion of pictures of a specific person on reddit, who was easily found and connected to the picture. And as a rule it's easy to find the source of crossposted pics which causes them to be often, if not always, facilitate contact between hopeful harassers and their victims.
3) You seem to be claiming that posting in a thread tacitly constitutes permission for abuse and transforms harassing comments into non-harassing comments. To put it lightly, that theory stands in need of elaboration.
4) It just means you're working with a very forgiving, permissive view toward harassment.
5) See #2 and #4
6,7,8 and 9 are more or less covered by the above.
You're not disputing 10.
11) from what I can see there is a commenter asserting it was a fabrication by a troll, providing links to pages that are no longer accessible. Given the context of many willing accusers and willing apologists on all sides, that doesn't seem like much of a debunking to me.
And just as a big picture gloss, no one posting comments in those threads is mincing over those fine distinctions like we're trying to do here. They're just posting a lot of vile comments and leaving it to everybody else to debate whether it can be proven to be harassment to a degree that holds up under the most granular, forgiving analysis possible. In the cases where it's not harassment, it isn't due to anything approaching principled restraint on the part of the participants. Crossposted pics, for example, may lead to direct harassment or they may not, depending on how people respond to them. The possibility of facilitating harassment clearly isn't stopping people from going ahead and posting them, as the examples above illustrate.
Just to make sure we don't miss the forest for the trees here, that lack of restraint in and of itself is an indictment of their behavior, and should be cause for unequivocal condemnation of how community management was handled on reddit long before we even get to the point of arguing whether specific instances technically count as harassment according to this or that preferred definition.
1) It is targeted toward the reader in second person narrative, frankly informing them that they are surrounded by people that hate them in everyday life. The tone is not sarcastic or satirical. It has literally no other purpose than directing genuinely intended emotional abuse at real people.
2) It's discussion of pictures of a specific person on reddit, who was easily found and connected to the picture. And as a rule it's easy to find the source of crossposted pics which causes them to be often, if not always, facilitate contact between hopeful harassers and their victims.
3) You seem to be claiming that posting in a thread tacitly constitutes permission for abuse and transforms harassing comments into non-harassing comments. To put it lightly, that theory stands in need of elaboration.
4) It just means you're working with a very forgiving, permissive view toward harassment.
5) See #2 and #4
6,7,8 and 9 are more or less covered by the above.
You're not disputing 10.
11) from what I can see there is a commenter asserting it was a fabrication by a troll, providing links to pages that are no longer accessible. Given the context of many willing accusers and willing apologists on all sides, that doesn't seem like much of a debunking to me.
And just as a big picture gloss, no one posting comments in those threads is mincing over those fine distinctions like we're trying to do here. They're just posting a lot of vile comments and leaving it to everybody else to debate whether it can be proven to be harassment to a degree that holds up under the most granular, forgiving analysis possible. In the cases where it's not harassment, it isn't due to anything approaching principled restraint on the part of the participants. Crossposted pics, for example, may lead to direct harassment or they may not, depending on how people respond to them. The possibility of facilitating harassment clearly isn't stopping people from going ahead and posting them, as the examples above illustrate.
Just to make sure we don't miss the forest for the trees here, that lack of restraint in and of itself is an indictment of their behavior, and should be cause for unequivocal condemnation of how community management was handled on reddit long before we even get to the point of arguing whether specific instances technically count as harassment according to this or that preferred definition.
> Removal of several employees, likely because they wouldn't/didn't relocate to SF.
Let's be perfectly honest here: that was Yishan's thing. He announced that change and set it into motion before he resigned.
Let's be perfectly honest here: that was Yishan's thing. He announced that change and set it into motion before he resigned.
? I thought Yishan left because he wasn't a fan of moving to SF.
e: half correct, they were in SF, moving to a new SF office but he wanted instead for the new office to be in Daly City:
"Then, when it came time to relocate from one San Francisco office to another, Wong put his foot down, Reddit sources say, and said he wanted to move the company to Daly City.
“I felt that locating an office in San Francisco proper is an incredibly difficult thing given the strains the city is facing and the high rents it imposes on employees who wish to live close to the office,” Wong said"
http://www.siliconbeat.com/2014/11/14/yishan-wong-leaves-red...
e: half correct, they were in SF, moving to a new SF office but he wanted instead for the new office to be in Daly City:
"Then, when it came time to relocate from one San Francisco office to another, Wong put his foot down, Reddit sources say, and said he wanted to move the company to Daly City.
“I felt that locating an office in San Francisco proper is an incredibly difficult thing given the strains the city is facing and the high rents it imposes on employees who wish to live close to the office,” Wong said"
http://www.siliconbeat.com/2014/11/14/yishan-wong-leaves-red...
Officially, he left because the board shot down his plans for a new office. Like, right after the board told him no, he said "well, I quit then".
Unofficially, he was burned out, and he used that as his excuse to quit.
(the new office was probably why he wanted everyone to relocate to SF, so everyone could come work at this huge new office he wanted for the team)
Unofficially, he was burned out, and he used that as his excuse to quit.
(the new office was probably why he wanted everyone to relocate to SF, so everyone could come work at this huge new office he wanted for the team)
Here's an analogy:
Imagine a pub (Digg) that everyone in town went to. Everything was great until the pub decided to try to make more money by forcing patrons to sit a certain way. Everyone in town decided to boycott this pub, and then they found another pub (Reddit), that didn't have the silly monetization scheme that the Digg pub had. The influx of new patrons turned this quiet little pub in the corner of the town into the main pub in town. Everyone was welcome in this pub - sports types, gamers, geeks, fitness nerds. Everyone had their own little corner, and for a few years the pub provided the town with a place to meet up with people of similar interest, even if the interests were darker in nature.
During the last year, the pub decided to hire a new manager (Ellen Pao). The new manager wants the pub to be a more welcoming place for people of all types so she decides to ban a group of rowdy patrons. However, other patrons felt that Ellen Pao intruded on their freedom to express themselves and their own opinions in the pub, and an uprising took place. To calm the uprising, Pao decides to completely silence people who talked shit about her (shadowbans, subreddit bans), and bans out even more groups of people. Patrons were NOT happy about this situation.
Then, the managers of this pub decided to fire a very well loved employee who contributed a lot to bringing awesome guests to the pub, without letting the patrons or the other employees know about it. This made other employees of the pub very angry, as they all loved what she does for the community. To make matters worse, the managers make snide comments about the situation. Due to the previous Ellen Pao bannings and the recent firing, everyone in the pub decides to riot in whatever way they can. They also consider moving to a new pub in town (voat.co) though the pub seems to always be full.
People were angry, and they knew they have the power to completely render Reddit unpopular, just like they did with Digg. Reddit listened to the community rather than got stuck inside their own views on what the website should or should not be and the resignation of Pao was the outcome; a good PR move.
Imagine a pub (Digg) that everyone in town went to. Everything was great until the pub decided to try to make more money by forcing patrons to sit a certain way. Everyone in town decided to boycott this pub, and then they found another pub (Reddit), that didn't have the silly monetization scheme that the Digg pub had. The influx of new patrons turned this quiet little pub in the corner of the town into the main pub in town. Everyone was welcome in this pub - sports types, gamers, geeks, fitness nerds. Everyone had their own little corner, and for a few years the pub provided the town with a place to meet up with people of similar interest, even if the interests were darker in nature.
During the last year, the pub decided to hire a new manager (Ellen Pao). The new manager wants the pub to be a more welcoming place for people of all types so she decides to ban a group of rowdy patrons. However, other patrons felt that Ellen Pao intruded on their freedom to express themselves and their own opinions in the pub, and an uprising took place. To calm the uprising, Pao decides to completely silence people who talked shit about her (shadowbans, subreddit bans), and bans out even more groups of people. Patrons were NOT happy about this situation.
Then, the managers of this pub decided to fire a very well loved employee who contributed a lot to bringing awesome guests to the pub, without letting the patrons or the other employees know about it. This made other employees of the pub very angry, as they all loved what she does for the community. To make matters worse, the managers make snide comments about the situation. Due to the previous Ellen Pao bannings and the recent firing, everyone in the pub decides to riot in whatever way they can. They also consider moving to a new pub in town (voat.co) though the pub seems to always be full.
People were angry, and they knew they have the power to completely render Reddit unpopular, just like they did with Digg. Reddit listened to the community rather than got stuck inside their own views on what the website should or should not be and the resignation of Pao was the outcome; a good PR move.
Failure to understand Non-Profit 101. If you rely on unpaid volunteers, you can't afford to enrage them. It doesn't really matter if those volunteers are right or wrong.
I wonder if a Law Degree runs counter to running a social network? Where authority bumps up against anarchy. Imagine Peter Thiel running reddit. Both Thiel and Pao have law degrees. Both have been lightning rods. I suspect a JD comes in handy for some ventures. Such as Thiel running Paypal or Pao sourcing funding for RPX. In both of those cases, it is about removing ambiguity. For social nets, the opposite holds true. Because, ambiguity is the main product.
Reddit: The world's largest drunken mob.
I'm not even going to debate whether or not she was an effective CEO. At the end of the day it's about the lawsuit, and I'm not going to argue the merits of that either. The only thing she should have realized from the start was that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You either choose reddit or the lawsuit. You can't divide your focus between both or you lose both.
Friendly reminder that this very website widely supported a campaign to make a black woman leave a board of a tech company. [1] And she actually didn't do anything questionable while being on board, to warrant such an outrage.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566069
Great to see Steve back in the fold
[deleted](2)
So, there are two stories people use to sum all the affair up: either "the witch is dead", or "pitchfork mob got what they wanted".
But neither of these stories really fit the information we have right now. Both of them fit some of it, and look realistic — unless you look at the whole picture.
The best conclusion we can have here is that we don't actually know what's _really_ going on, just a bunch of facts and a couple of theories.
But neither of these stories really fit the information we have right now. Both of them fit some of it, and look realistic — unless you look at the whole picture.
The best conclusion we can have here is that we don't actually know what's _really_ going on, just a bunch of facts and a couple of theories.
That article was more suited for editorial than technology. Pao was hated mainly for things either done by reddit before her, or done by her before reddit. Unfortunately, as leaders often are, she was held responsible for both. That being said she was interim, and was apparently not aligned with reddit culturally. That's an internet thing, not, as this article was so quick to claim, a gender thing.
In the 24th Upvoted by Reddit podcast, Steve and Alexis talked about all the great content and communities hiding within Reddit that go undiscovered. I'm excited to see how they'll try to solve that problem, and hope they find a great solution. Reddit is really great, and it's very cool to see both Steve and Alexis back to enjoy and advance it.
I posted this over on reddit but it got lost in the noise:
Cool, I guess. But after having spent some time on voat.co I think reddit will get less and less of my attention (not that anyone gives a shit about me but I suspect I'm not alone).
Reddit's management has destroyed any sense of trust I had in Reddit (I'm looking at you /u/kn0thing, it's not just Ellen, my understanding is you fired Victoria, right? And then grabbed popcorn [I know, cheap shot, but it appears like you really fell out of touch]).
It appears that it is all about making money which I think is going to be the end of Reddit for some of us. Reddit could have a decent revenue stream on reasonable ads but that wasn't enough, it had to be more. That is really troubling because the next thing you might decide to "monetize" is what each of your users reads. That would make the NSA look amateurs and would be a massive invasion of privacy. It would also be very easy to monetize. Given all that has been going on, it would appear to be just a matter of time before "user optimized marketing" appears.
Welcome back but the existing management has dug you a mighty big hole. I don't trust you any more.
Cool, I guess. But after having spent some time on voat.co I think reddit will get less and less of my attention (not that anyone gives a shit about me but I suspect I'm not alone).
Reddit's management has destroyed any sense of trust I had in Reddit (I'm looking at you /u/kn0thing, it's not just Ellen, my understanding is you fired Victoria, right? And then grabbed popcorn [I know, cheap shot, but it appears like you really fell out of touch]).
It appears that it is all about making money which I think is going to be the end of Reddit for some of us. Reddit could have a decent revenue stream on reasonable ads but that wasn't enough, it had to be more. That is really troubling because the next thing you might decide to "monetize" is what each of your users reads. That would make the NSA look amateurs and would be a massive invasion of privacy. It would also be very easy to monetize. Given all that has been going on, it would appear to be just a matter of time before "user optimized marketing" appears.
Welcome back but the existing management has dug you a mighty big hole. I don't trust you any more.
Huh. I may have to walk that back. I just got back from cleaning up some Greg Chesson's computers (he passed on) so I haven't been watching stuff.
Caught up and read Steve Huffman's stuff, he seems like the real deal, he seems to care, be all over it, maybe he'll fix it. He at least sounds like someone who gives a shit about the right things.
So maybe I'm wrong, it happens.
Caught up and read Steve Huffman's stuff, he seems like the real deal, he seems to care, be all over it, maybe he'll fix it. He at least sounds like someone who gives a shit about the right things.
So maybe I'm wrong, it happens.
Sometimes internet-hate is completely arbitrary.
Maybe she screwed up some things, I don't know, but from reading posts on reddit it felt like an arbitrary cat video going viral - the amount of attention was not warranted by the "causes".
Remember PG getting all the shit on twitter because of his misunderstood statement about women?
Outrage is a powerful emotion, and people enjoy participating in revolutions when it doesn't require any effort and can be done from the safety of a computer screen.
I'm pretty sure 99% of people participating in this shitstorm had no good reason to care about it at all, and did it just because it felt "fun" to participate in something like this.
Also - way to teach an angry mob that they can get what they want if they yell about it enough by giving in to their demands.
Maybe she screwed up some things, I don't know, but from reading posts on reddit it felt like an arbitrary cat video going viral - the amount of attention was not warranted by the "causes".
Remember PG getting all the shit on twitter because of his misunderstood statement about women?
Outrage is a powerful emotion, and people enjoy participating in revolutions when it doesn't require any effort and can be done from the safety of a computer screen.
I'm pretty sure 99% of people participating in this shitstorm had no good reason to care about it at all, and did it just because it felt "fun" to participate in something like this.
Also - way to teach an angry mob that they can get what they want if they yell about it enough by giving in to their demands.
[deleted]
Even on the internet, mob mentality wins.
We keep hearing over and over again about how it's a small minority of vocal people who spew vitriol in any community, but how about providing some real, hard data?
Reddit has enough data and skill to identify approximately the percetage of users who engaged in this type of behaviour at the very least.
I'd rather see the numbers myself than read a press release simply stating something and being asked to believe it.
Reddit has enough data and skill to identify approximately the percetage of users who engaged in this type of behaviour at the very least.
I'd rather see the numbers myself than read a press release simply stating something and being asked to believe it.
rough year for her
Perpetual PR nightmare averted.
That's what you get for trying to turn the internet into Disneyland.
Hey I've got an idea:
Let's all cry together because someone said something mean about a public figure. In fact, I'm incapable of discussing any other aspect of this event until this unspeakable atrocity has been addressed.
Let's all cry together because someone said something mean about a public figure. In fact, I'm incapable of discussing any other aspect of this event until this unspeakable atrocity has been addressed.
[deleted]
This NYT report is as much detached from reality and propagandist as reporting on support for the 2003 Iraq war. Is Victoria, the popular Reddit employee fired, in support of whom all this affair happened, a male?
Attempting such a propaganda in this connected day and age is supremely stupid.
Attempting such a propaganda in this connected day and age is supremely stupid.
quelle surprise
During the KP trial I had always kept an open mind towards her arguments...until I later learned she was married to Buddy Fletcher, one of the biggest scoundrels and thieves in the investment world in recent years. The character and judgment of a person who would fall in love and wed someone like that says more than I can articulate. It's oddly reassuring to see my (and many, many others') skepticism about both her judgment and motives validated.
Stop it. Woman do not somehow have to share the blame for their husbands alleged misdeeds. Seriously, this is 2015, not the middle ages where they'd burn a woman at the stake for something her husband did wrong.
Everything about their saga is bizarre. Did you know that up until his marriage to Ellen, Buddy had lived as a homosexual? he was living with a partner of multiple years (Hobart “Bo” Fowlkes) and was openly gay. Not that there is anything odd or wrong about that.
It is just rather strange how these two polarizing figures came together in a union.
For more info and details see:
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch...
And then there are the KP employee reviews and other internal documents which became public as a result of the trial she lost that show Ellen Pao to be a thoroughly unproductive and toxic employee who was given every opportunity to shape up but was too busy engrossed in the internal office politics and making 'enemy lists'.
If someone made a movie about this stuff and the people involved, most would think it too unrealistic.
It is just rather strange how these two polarizing figures came together in a union.
For more info and details see:
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch...
And then there are the KP employee reviews and other internal documents which became public as a result of the trial she lost that show Ellen Pao to be a thoroughly unproductive and toxic employee who was given every opportunity to shape up but was too busy engrossed in the internal office politics and making 'enemy lists'.
If someone made a movie about this stuff and the people involved, most would think it too unrealistic.
> Not that there is anything odd or wrong about that.
I find it really strange when people talk about someone's personal life details and then say that there's nothing odd or wrong about it. Especially when right before that they say that their personal situation is "bizzare", and the reader kinda expects to learn, what is so bizzare about it.
So, why did you bring his bisexuality up in that comment?
I find it really strange when people talk about someone's personal life details and then say that there's nothing odd or wrong about it. Especially when right before that they say that their personal situation is "bizzare", and the reader kinda expects to learn, what is so bizzare about it.
So, why did you bring his bisexuality up in that comment?
How do you know he's bisexual?
You're guilty of making a vast assumption about the context.
What would be wrong with a marriage of political or business convenience involving no sex, if that's what it is? Obviously nothing. You've matter-of-fact labeled his sexuality without knowing either way.
You're guilty of making a vast assumption about the context.
What would be wrong with a marriage of political or business convenience involving no sex, if that's what it is? Obviously nothing. You've matter-of-fact labeled his sexuality without knowing either way.
I just used the word to refer to the point made in the original comment. I didn't really make any statements or assumptions about this person, and my comment wasn't even about this person at all — my comment was about the semantics of the parent comment.
Something being "bizarre" is entirely orthogonal to "right vs wrong" value judgements.
The article states that Buddy lived with a boyfriend, which is not the same as living as a homosexual, as he might be bisexual. Some other articles state that he was "openly gay", but perhaps those articles are slightly incorrect.
The VF article also states that Fletcher dated exclusively women while at Harvard, and that "Fowlkes wasn’t surprised that his former boyfriend had become involved with a woman."
One of the issues during the trial was for KP to show that she had options outside the firm and that her dismissal was not detrimental to her career.
The CEO of Reddit gig came in nicely to prove just that. Even if she was just an interim CEO. Now the actual CEO is in place, considering that she did not work out ok for Reddit.
The knife cuts both ways. The clickbait media and various groups are trying to paint the now predictable narrative of '50 white male racist misogynist neck beards' who want to chase women out of tech again. Over 200,000 people with legitimate concerns sign a petition to have Pao step down yet they still carry on with there charade.
People are sick and tired of the media and a small group of militant activists trying to silence people who they disagree with. They engage in all forms of harassment, trying to get people fired, posting addresses and family pictures etc. The most critical things against Pao and her husband I have seen are posts about there phony extortion sexism and racism law suits. All of which is factual information available to the public and even the media has to admit these things are facts.
The clickbait media has to be called out more then anyone for trying to turn every issue no matter how banal into a black and white battle between good and evil and then fanning the flames on both sides. Its extremely cynical mostly to drive traffic to there sites. There is zero accountability in the media today and zero ethics. Everyone needs to be much more sceptical about what they read in the press and there motivations.
People are sick and tired of the media and a small group of militant activists trying to silence people who they disagree with. They engage in all forms of harassment, trying to get people fired, posting addresses and family pictures etc. The most critical things against Pao and her husband I have seen are posts about there phony extortion sexism and racism law suits. All of which is factual information available to the public and even the media has to admit these things are facts.
The clickbait media has to be called out more then anyone for trying to turn every issue no matter how banal into a black and white battle between good and evil and then fanning the flames on both sides. Its extremely cynical mostly to drive traffic to there sites. There is zero accountability in the media today and zero ethics. Everyone needs to be much more sceptical about what they read in the press and there motivations.
> . The most critical things against Pao and her husband I have seen are posts about there phony extortion sexism and racism law suits.
What about the subreddit comparing Ellen Pao to Pyongyang [0].
Jokes about Pao with over a +4000 positive score [1] [2] Jokes comparing Ellen Pao to Hitler. [3] I remember a post to /r/pics or /r/funny of Hitler's Wikipedia page, with Pao's photo instead of Hitler.
I ran into some old coworkers (who take Reddit WAAAY too seriously) at a bar during the weekend this whole thing was first blowing up. They were literally talking about how Pao needs to die. Then they got drunk, forgot they had ranted about her, and told me again how she needed to die.
This whole thing was really disgusting and made me hate the average Reddit user. I'll still browse some of the smaller subs, but I won't be touching the frontpage ever again.
[0] http://www.reddit.com/r/paoyongyang
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/3c03y8/ellen_paos_car...
[2] http://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/3c05wq/what_sound_doe...
[3] http://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/3c0b5p/whats_the_diff...
What about the subreddit comparing Ellen Pao to Pyongyang [0].
Jokes about Pao with over a +4000 positive score [1] [2] Jokes comparing Ellen Pao to Hitler. [3] I remember a post to /r/pics or /r/funny of Hitler's Wikipedia page, with Pao's photo instead of Hitler.
I ran into some old coworkers (who take Reddit WAAAY too seriously) at a bar during the weekend this whole thing was first blowing up. They were literally talking about how Pao needs to die. Then they got drunk, forgot they had ranted about her, and told me again how she needed to die.
This whole thing was really disgusting and made me hate the average Reddit user. I'll still browse some of the smaller subs, but I won't be touching the frontpage ever again.
[0] http://www.reddit.com/r/paoyongyang
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/3c03y8/ellen_paos_car...
[2] http://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/3c05wq/what_sound_doe...
[3] http://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/3c0b5p/whats_the_diff...
What exactly is sexist about comparing someone to Hilter? Would the sexism change if the person being attacked fit under another demographic? Is it OK to criticize say Christopher Columbus because he is a white male. Please enlighten me.
[deleted]
It's not sexist, it's just plain offensive.
> This whole thing was really disgusting and made me hate the average Reddit user
They are not the average Reddit user.
Probably a huge majority of Reddit users have no idea who Ellen Pao is.
They are not the average Reddit user.
Probably a huge majority of Reddit users have no idea who Ellen Pao is.
Even if that's the case, they're a very visible component of Reddit's userbase, to the point that an outsider definitely might see them as representative.
If the default home page and /r/all can all be flooded with posts about her, it's not exactly a small group of extremists.
If the default home page and /r/all can all be flooded with posts about her, it's not exactly a small group of extremists.
If the default home page and /r/all can all
be flooded with posts about her, it's not
exactly a small group of extremists.
Reddit has roughly 1.5 million daily users. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/about/traffic
It only takes about a thousand (net) upvotes to get something to the front page.
So a very small (less than 1%) portion of the visitors can very much get things like "fire Ellen" posts onto the front page, especially when there's no opposing block of voters.
(In other words, there were no passionate defenders of Pao who were eagerly downvoting the posts that trashed her. There were only anti-Pao zealots, and a much larger userbase that simply didn't care much at all. Count me in the latter, FWIW.)
Sorry you're getting downvoted. Even Ellen Pao claims the racist and misogynist are a small minority.
What's wrong with the jokes? Ellen is a grownup and a public figure. Jokes come with the territory. No one is seriously comparing her to Hitler.
Just because no-one is literally drawing a moral equivalence between her and Hitler doesn't mean it's not a shitty thing to say, or that you're not a dick for saying it.
I think you would be a dick to send that joke to /u/ekjp, and it's a bit crass for a dinner party, but it's well within bounds on a pseudonymous forum called "Jokes".
Now, I think one could make the argument that /r/Jokes should be more heavily moderated because it's a default sub, and should cater to a more vanilla, easily offended audience.
Now, I think one could make the argument that /r/Jokes should be more heavily moderated because it's a default sub, and should cater to a more vanilla, easily offended audience.
The way you make the unfavorable comparisons worse is by taking them seriously. I wouldn't suggest taking those co-workers too seriously either - it probably won't help.
Ellen Pao wasn't awful, but all-in-all, it's probably a good thing she stepped down. Hopefully, next time there's a huge community changeover or staff change in reddit, everyone will talk through it and about it reasonably, and everyone will be able to bat away the easily-led and the gleeful and/or bored shit-stirrers.
Ellen Pao wasn't awful, but all-in-all, it's probably a good thing she stepped down. Hopefully, next time there's a huge community changeover or staff change in reddit, everyone will talk through it and about it reasonably, and everyone will be able to bat away the easily-led and the gleeful and/or bored shit-stirrers.
What takeaway should we have about those drunken coworkers? I see roughly three possibilities:
* Their comments were funny / reasonable / etc.; there was nothing wrong with them. GP was wrong to find it disgusting.
* Their comments were bad, but there's nothing we can do about them. Our society involves it being socially acceptable to tell jokes about how people should die because of their inability to articulate clear moderation policies on a popular website, and that's unfortunate, but there's no way that we'll be able to change that social norm. (Or, alternatively, changing that social norm carries unavoidable downsides.)
* Their comments were bad, it's possible to make it no longer socially acceptable to make those jokes, and it should happen.
This doesn't really have anything to do with how seriously we take them.
* Their comments were funny / reasonable / etc.; there was nothing wrong with them. GP was wrong to find it disgusting.
* Their comments were bad, but there's nothing we can do about them. Our society involves it being socially acceptable to tell jokes about how people should die because of their inability to articulate clear moderation policies on a popular website, and that's unfortunate, but there's no way that we'll be able to change that social norm. (Or, alternatively, changing that social norm carries unavoidable downsides.)
* Their comments were bad, it's possible to make it no longer socially acceptable to make those jokes, and it should happen.
This doesn't really have anything to do with how seriously we take them.
The 4th option would be to just not assign a moral value to their comments, and chose for yourself as an individual to not let yourself be offended by them. It doesn't mean the co-workers were right, but it doesn't penalize them if the didn't intend to be bad (because doing so would be a slippery slope to thought policing). Unless OP thinks his/her co-workers would face Pao in person and tell her those things, or worse, act on them, then is there any reason to let their silly actions cause you any distress?
OP did not say he was offended, just disgusted. Like "haha gross, look at these shitty guys". Just like if someone starts making racist remarks, even if I don't personally believe they would murder a black person in the street, I will feel embarrassed for associating with them, and recognize that they are shitty people at the moment, and that is not a slippery slope to thought policing. That is how culture slowly fixes itself.
I don't know, where I'm from "disgusted" is a much stronger term than "offended". It's like a visceral repulsion that triggers something bordering on mild rage. I don't know how the OP intended it, but if it's as you describe, then yes, it's not too bad, but I haven't seen that term used so lightly usually.
To me disgusted and offended are unrelated. I'd personally agree that in magnitude of responses, disgusted is probably stronger, but, to me, being disgusted is about finding something to be awful, whereas being offended is like being hurt yourself. As a white guy, I am not offended if a racist guy talks about killing black people. I am disgusted, and hush the room and tell everyone to point and laugh at him.
So here's something that's always struck me as odd about these sorts of defenses of free speech. (This is something I've been thinking about for a bit, so I'm not picking on you specifically, you just reminded me of it.)
I believe in the power of speech. I believe that there is utility in being able to convey my thoughts, without someone else filtering or censoring them, to others. I believe that my words mean things, that they reflect what I believe. I believe that being a person "of your word" is an important thing: that when you say you will do something, you intend to do it. I believe that lies are, of themselves, clearly of negative moral value. (Which is not to express an opinion on whether lies can serve some greater moral good, just to say that they have inherent demerit.) I believe that if I care about my friends, I care about what they say; if I value my friends, I value what they say; if I respect my friends, I respect what they say.
It is out of that conviction that I think that restrictions on one's ability to speak, whether from a government or a private party, carry great power, which, like all power, can be abused.
If I don't assign a moral value to these coworkers' comments, if I don't care what they say, if I don't care to have opinions on their speech lest I risk "thought policing" them, if I believe that people may say bad things while intending to be good (or vice versa) and that's just okay... it seems that I have completely devalued the power of speech, and I have destroyed the very reason we care about free speech, without censoring a single word. If anyone can say anything and it could mean anything or nothing, and nobody cares, what is the point of speech?
I believe in the power of speech. I believe that there is utility in being able to convey my thoughts, without someone else filtering or censoring them, to others. I believe that my words mean things, that they reflect what I believe. I believe that being a person "of your word" is an important thing: that when you say you will do something, you intend to do it. I believe that lies are, of themselves, clearly of negative moral value. (Which is not to express an opinion on whether lies can serve some greater moral good, just to say that they have inherent demerit.) I believe that if I care about my friends, I care about what they say; if I value my friends, I value what they say; if I respect my friends, I respect what they say.
It is out of that conviction that I think that restrictions on one's ability to speak, whether from a government or a private party, carry great power, which, like all power, can be abused.
If I don't assign a moral value to these coworkers' comments, if I don't care what they say, if I don't care to have opinions on their speech lest I risk "thought policing" them, if I believe that people may say bad things while intending to be good (or vice versa) and that's just okay... it seems that I have completely devalued the power of speech, and I have destroyed the very reason we care about free speech, without censoring a single word. If anyone can say anything and it could mean anything or nothing, and nobody cares, what is the point of speech?
The point of drunk, hyperbolic speech is to vent frustration. Just because some kinds of speech can raise armies doesn't mean that all kinds of speech should be treated as if they will.
Frankly every public figure is compared to Hitler at some point or the other on the internet. There have been pretty personal attacks on Ellen Pao on reddit, but every link you posted here is relatively mild. Similar posts and subreddits were made about Yishan Wong[1] when he was CEO. Hell, reddit also makes fun of little kids[2]. You can not police what people make fun of.
The personal attacks and name calling, which haven't been linked in your comments, were a bit much. However they were few and far in between.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/yishansucks
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcoop
The personal attacks and name calling, which haven't been linked in your comments, were a bit much. However they were few and far in between.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/yishansucks
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcoop
> However they were few and far in between.
No they were not. https://www.reddit.com/r/all was dominated by them for days following the banning of /r/FatPeopleHate.
No they were not. https://www.reddit.com/r/all was dominated by them for days following the banning of /r/FatPeopleHate.
Thanks to bots, yes. You did notice that those 4k+ upvotes posts had somewhere between 0-20 comments in them, right?
[deleted](1)
What about it? If you are a public figure these are pretty common. On the same ground, would you go an extra mile like this post when somebody comparing donald trump to hitler? Your political bias goes both ways...
> The most critical things against Pao and her husband I have seen are posts about there phony extortion sexism and racism law suits. All of which is factual information available to the public and even the media has to admit these things are facts.
Oh please. You can disclaim the disgusting statements made all over reddit recently as not part of a coherent community or whatever, but don't pretend they didn't exist at all.
As for the rest of this nonsense, the statement quoted had nothing to do with "clickbait media and various groups" (I seriously feel like we're in talking points memos territory with this stuff), this is a statement from Sam Altman, so take it up with him.
> There is zero accountability in the media today and zero ethics. Everyone needs to be much more sceptical about what they read in the press and there motivations.
I mean, seriously, what on earth are you addressing here? Who are you talking to?
Oh please. You can disclaim the disgusting statements made all over reddit recently as not part of a coherent community or whatever, but don't pretend they didn't exist at all.
As for the rest of this nonsense, the statement quoted had nothing to do with "clickbait media and various groups" (I seriously feel like we're in talking points memos territory with this stuff), this is a statement from Sam Altman, so take it up with him.
> There is zero accountability in the media today and zero ethics. Everyone needs to be much more sceptical about what they read in the press and there motivations.
I mean, seriously, what on earth are you addressing here? Who are you talking to?
The most disgusting posting I have seen is by our good friends the yellow journalists trying to weave there 'Reddit is misogynist' narrative. While Redditors are upset that Pao fires perhaps the most competent and well liked woman working at Reddit.
Urinalism is largely discredited at this point due to there bias and agenda.
Urinalism is largely discredited at this point due to there bias and agenda.
Redditors do not know anything about who works at Reddit, so they could not possibly be upset at the firing of "the most competent person". Most well liked public facing one to some people who read one of the subreddits, sure.
Protip: it's their, not there.
Protip: If you have to resort to attacking someones grammar when you're out of counter arguments it means you lost the debate.
If that isn't a pointlessly antagonistic thing to say, I don't know what is.
We can't all be winners.
Urinalism sounds like a (sadly, apparently discredited) singular, though!
Victoria was beloved despite the fact she was a woman, not necessarily because of it. I understand what you're trying to say, but it doesn't really hold up.
Well isn't that a convenient narrative? Any woman the community likes is despite the fact she's a woman. Anyone they dislike is because she's a woman. The outrage writes itself!
It's not entirely inaccurate.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but those last two lines read to me like a callout to #gamergate's "It's about ethics in journalism" BS.
So questioning ethics in any kind of journalism anywhere is automatically BS now because of some random highly-opinionated internet drama? Way to discourage critical thinking. Orwell and Huxley would be proud.
No, abruptly trying to turn a conversation about disgusting comments made on reddit into one on the "clickbait media has to be called out" is like a parody of the parodies of gamergate. I mean, it's like well into Poe's law territory.
Did you even follow the original parent's argument? He didn't just bring up "clickbait media" as a non-sequitur while defending reddit comments. He highlighted how everything in this whole mess so far can be explained through the lens of questionable media, and literally none of his analysis+critique has been addressed so far, all that's been done is point out how he sounded like some angry mob person. Please explain to me how that is a logical way to respond to a legitimate argument.
> He highlighted how everything in this whole mess so far can be explained through the lens of questionable media
What "everything" are you referring to here? That's the problem with addressing this "analysis+critique". There's almost nothing being analyzed or critiqued. This was a pretty minor story even in the tech blogs, let alone major news outlets.
What "everything" are you referring to here? That's the problem with addressing this "analysis+critique". There's almost nothing being analyzed or critiqued. This was a pretty minor story even in the tech blogs, let alone major news outlets.
> This was a pretty minor story even in the tech blogs, let alone major news outlets.
This is currently the #1 post on HN. It might not be the biggest community, but it is influential, and many people bypass visiting blogs/sites and come directly here for their news. Things don't have to be on the front page of Time magazine to leave an impact on interested communities. And here, clearly people are interested enough in this matter to make it the most highly commented submission on the front page right now. So to try and paint a popular HN item as pointless chump change is quite disingenuous.
This is currently the #1 post on HN. It might not be the biggest community, but it is influential, and many people bypass visiting blogs/sites and come directly here for their news. Things don't have to be on the front page of Time magazine to leave an impact on interested communities. And here, clearly people are interested enough in this matter to make it the most highly commented submission on the front page right now. So to try and paint a popular HN item as pointless chump change is quite disingenuous.
> It might not be the biggest community, but it is influential, and many people bypass visiting blogs/sites and come directly here for their news.
So then what does this have to do with "questioning ethics in any kind of journalism"??
I am a commenter on HN and a redditor and am in no way related to the "clickbait media", so how are my contributions to this thread "explained through the lens of questionable media"?
The problem is the deflection. It started as a discussion about the actual situation, but apparently "everyone needs to be much more sceptical about what they read in the press and there motivations", and is now about...biased HN posts? I really have no idea.
If you were worried about that, you should have discussed the actual situation and addressed what you thought were misrepresentations, not going off on some tangent about media ethics.
So then what does this have to do with "questioning ethics in any kind of journalism"??
I am a commenter on HN and a redditor and am in no way related to the "clickbait media", so how are my contributions to this thread "explained through the lens of questionable media"?
The problem is the deflection. It started as a discussion about the actual situation, but apparently "everyone needs to be much more sceptical about what they read in the press and there motivations", and is now about...biased HN posts? I really have no idea.
If you were worried about that, you should have discussed the actual situation and addressed what you thought were misrepresentations, not going off on some tangent about media ethics.
> I am a commenter on HN and a redditor and am in no way related to the "clickbait media", so how are my contributions to this thread "explained through the lens of questionable media"?
Herein lies the problem: there is increasingly less of a difference between you or I, some "random strangers on the internet", and 'trusted' news sources like the New York Times. So it's not so much that we're not related to the 'clickbait' media, it's that the media is now mirroring us, unfiltered, and many don't realize that this is basically the modern MO of 'news reporting'. The lines are blurring as a side effect of the influence social media has, that's the danger.
> It started as a discussion about the actual situation, but apparently "everyone needs to be much more sceptical about what they read in the press and there motivations", and is now about...biased HN posts? I really have no idea.
Yeah, I agree. It's certainly hard to follow, but we are on a platform that makes misinformation incredibly easy to produce. Technology is unfortunately a double-edged sword like that.
> If you were worried about that, you should have discussed the actual situation and addressed what you thought were misrepresentations, not going off on some tangent about media ethics
I agree, it would be nice, but at this point it'd be like playing whack-a-mole, with changing definitions of what it means to be a 'mole'. It's unfortunate, but it'd be pretty difficult to keep up with every possible distortion even if we tried, so the best I can do is just remind people that "hey, even when I'm not around to remind you, you should probably try to question things that you believe and might've picked up from somewhere".
Herein lies the problem: there is increasingly less of a difference between you or I, some "random strangers on the internet", and 'trusted' news sources like the New York Times. So it's not so much that we're not related to the 'clickbait' media, it's that the media is now mirroring us, unfiltered, and many don't realize that this is basically the modern MO of 'news reporting'. The lines are blurring as a side effect of the influence social media has, that's the danger.
> It started as a discussion about the actual situation, but apparently "everyone needs to be much more sceptical about what they read in the press and there motivations", and is now about...biased HN posts? I really have no idea.
Yeah, I agree. It's certainly hard to follow, but we are on a platform that makes misinformation incredibly easy to produce. Technology is unfortunately a double-edged sword like that.
> If you were worried about that, you should have discussed the actual situation and addressed what you thought were misrepresentations, not going off on some tangent about media ethics
I agree, it would be nice, but at this point it'd be like playing whack-a-mole, with changing definitions of what it means to be a 'mole'. It's unfortunate, but it'd be pretty difficult to keep up with every possible distortion even if we tried, so the best I can do is just remind people that "hey, even when I'm not around to remind you, you should probably try to question things that you believe and might've picked up from somewhere".
Saying that online activists are equally to blame as misogynists and racists for the devolution of civil dialog online is sort of like insisting on creationism getting equal media coverage to evolution on the basis of fairness.
If your plan to get rid of the trolls is to feed them by bringing their trolling out of the dark confines of message boards and trying to shame them in public, congratulations, you've fed the trolls, and inspired other proto-trolls (goblins, kobalds, I need a D&D person here...) to snicker in their caverns and sling their troll arrows at you.
If you start trying to troll the trolls, you're laying on a feast of HGH-laden troll-bait.
People have always been shitty to each other. The internet tends to act as a force multiplier for shittiness, allowing people to be shitty to each other at extreme distances, and with much improved protections from the immediate consequences. Once was a time, I hear, where if you insulted somebody in the public square, you had to be ready to drop the gloves if the insultee took it harshly. I dunno, I came in just at the very end of when it was considered acceptable for children to wrassle, and not grounds for throwing them, or maybe their parents, too, in jail.
If you start trying to troll the trolls, you're laying on a feast of HGH-laden troll-bait.
People have always been shitty to each other. The internet tends to act as a force multiplier for shittiness, allowing people to be shitty to each other at extreme distances, and with much improved protections from the immediate consequences. Once was a time, I hear, where if you insulted somebody in the public square, you had to be ready to drop the gloves if the insultee took it harshly. I dunno, I came in just at the very end of when it was considered acceptable for children to wrassle, and not grounds for throwing them, or maybe their parents, too, in jail.
One person's "freedom fighter" is another person's "terrorist". For matters like these, it's better if we stick to the few objective observations we can make, such as deconstructing how arguments are made, and when/where they're propagated, which is exactly what the original comment tried to do.
The irony in this comment about not discouraging critical thinking whilst shaming someone drawing a parallel... first overstating the GP's case to extremes, then doing a form of Reductio ad Hitlerum...
... it's just delicious.
... it's just delicious.
There's no reason why my comments shouldn't be analyzed critically either. So if you feel up to it, please do so. But the comment I responded to did not exhibit any logical analyses, nor any reminders to remain analytical.
> So if you feel up to it, please do so.
Uh, I just did.
Reductio Ad Hitlerum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
Overstating the case to extremes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
My point is that you're being a hypocrite, demanding someone else not discourage critical thinking, while exhibiting logical fallacies yourself. Shaming someone about 'discouraging critical thinking' through the use of a strawman is particularly egregious.
Uh, I just did.
Reductio Ad Hitlerum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
Overstating the case to extremes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
My point is that you're being a hypocrite, demanding someone else not discourage critical thinking, while exhibiting logical fallacies yourself. Shaming someone about 'discouraging critical thinking' through the use of a strawman is particularly egregious.
Critical thinking just involves analysis of arguments presented. If my arguments were fallacious, then I apologize, but you haven't exactly clarified how exactly I exaggerated the OP's claims, as opposed to just summarized them. I'll accept the godwin's law card, that was a slip.
Secondly, I did notice your analysis, but I was referring to the general "you", so that others can feel free to chime in and critique as well.
Secondly, I did notice your analysis, but I was referring to the general "you", so that others can feel free to chime in and critique as well.
"this reminds me of gamergate" => "questioning ethics in any journalism anywhere"
It's a fairly stock form of strawman, taking someone's opinion and extrapolating it to the extreme. There are qualitative parallels between this event and gamergate, and the GP was mentioning them. I thought the same as the GP. But questioning ethics in any journalism anywhere? Seriously? For example, people question the ethics of Rupert Murdoch's empire and those of the UK tabloid culture, yet that public questioning is not reminiscent at all of gamergate.
I certainly don't see Murdoch getting numerous vitriolic rape threats because of his questionable journalistic ethics.
It's a fairly stock form of strawman, taking someone's opinion and extrapolating it to the extreme. There are qualitative parallels between this event and gamergate, and the GP was mentioning them. I thought the same as the GP. But questioning ethics in any journalism anywhere? Seriously? For example, people question the ethics of Rupert Murdoch's empire and those of the UK tabloid culture, yet that public questioning is not reminiscent at all of gamergate.
I certainly don't see Murdoch getting numerous vitriolic rape threats because of his questionable journalistic ethics.
The comment was intending to cast doubt about a critique of the news article posted here. This article has nothing to do with gamergate, and the critique had nothing to do with gamergate. The comment could've elaborated on the parallels and presented a thoughtful analysis about that, but that's not what was posted. Thus if there was no blatant relationship between these events, and none were elaborated or clearly argued for, then what is the rule for applying this whole "integrity in journalism argument" => "gamergate" => BS chain of logic? If there is none, then by definition, it can be applied anywhere. So I don't see how my comment is logically invalid in pointing this out.
I also hope you realize that your comparison between this article and gamergate is about as valid as my original one was to orwell & huxley; i.e. it's pointless to just point out and insinuate some kind of similarity unless you clarify what it is you're actually trying to argue. Pointing things out like that without explanation just gives the impression that you want to throw the negative connotations of events like gamergate (or the holocaust for hitler analogies) onto unrelated arguments to silence them.
And finally, the problems with media run farther than just the bigtime moguls out there like Murdoch, and as I've already mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it's a direct byproduct of the influence social media has had, and this is more thoroughly elaborated on in the book "Trust Me, I'm Lying". That book came out well before gamergate even happened, yet random questions about the dubious journalistic practices this book outlines are all somehow related to that silly gamergate incident?
I also hope you realize that your comparison between this article and gamergate is about as valid as my original one was to orwell & huxley; i.e. it's pointless to just point out and insinuate some kind of similarity unless you clarify what it is you're actually trying to argue. Pointing things out like that without explanation just gives the impression that you want to throw the negative connotations of events like gamergate (or the holocaust for hitler analogies) onto unrelated arguments to silence them.
And finally, the problems with media run farther than just the bigtime moguls out there like Murdoch, and as I've already mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it's a direct byproduct of the influence social media has had, and this is more thoroughly elaborated on in the book "Trust Me, I'm Lying". That book came out well before gamergate even happened, yet random questions about the dubious journalistic practices this book outlines are all somehow related to that silly gamergate incident?
No, just because the GP didn't elaborate reasons for the comparison does not make your strawman not a strawman. You put words into badsock's mouth, and then applied shame for things badsock didn't say. "This reminds me of gamergate" is not "any criticism of any journalistic ethics anywhere", period.
Similarly, my 'there are parallels' and your 'huxley and orwell' aren't the same. You say that it's pointless to present without clarification, yet I presented the comment dispassionately and gave some counter-examples to clarify. Your huxley/orwell comment was a snarky comment, based off a strawman.
You're also confusing my point with the GP's. While I agree with the GP, my point is not that this event is reminiscent of gamergate, but that you're behaving hypocritically.
Similarly, my 'there are parallels' and your 'huxley and orwell' aren't the same. You say that it's pointless to present without clarification, yet I presented the comment dispassionately and gave some counter-examples to clarify. Your huxley/orwell comment was a snarky comment, based off a strawman.
You're also confusing my point with the GP's. While I agree with the GP, my point is not that this event is reminiscent of gamergate, but that you're behaving hypocritically.
The only thing I am saying, is that even mentioning negative events such as gamergate, triggers in readers the negative connotations associated with them, and it is a common tactic to sully opponent's arguments for that reason. So when possible, it is good to avoid those kinds of unproductive remarks unless there's a good tie-in, which so far there hasn't been, and I already elaborated on why it doesn't make any sense for there to be in my previous comment. If you seriously think that saying
> those last two lines read to me like a callout to #gamergate's "It's about ethics in journalism" BS.
was just a simple "This reminds me of gamergate", then you are the one putting words in people's mouths. The intention lies in the words "read to me like", implying that the original comment that was in response to, was invoking connotations of the gamergate event.
You are also applying the definitions of these fallacies you are mentioning rather selectively. Because if I am a hypocrite, then your argument that those gamergate parallels are more valid than the godwin invocations is equally hypocritical. A logical fallacy is not a matter of degree, it is a binary evaluation: either an argument is valid or it is not.
> those last two lines read to me like a callout to #gamergate's "It's about ethics in journalism" BS.
was just a simple "This reminds me of gamergate", then you are the one putting words in people's mouths. The intention lies in the words "read to me like", implying that the original comment that was in response to, was invoking connotations of the gamergate event.
You are also applying the definitions of these fallacies you are mentioning rather selectively. Because if I am a hypocrite, then your argument that those gamergate parallels are more valid than the godwin invocations is equally hypocritical. A logical fallacy is not a matter of degree, it is a binary evaluation: either an argument is valid or it is not.
The topic at hand is journalism and misogyny. That particular phrasing was often used as a thin veil over many vile attacks on women in visible positions during the gamergate thing. I see a lot of similarities with what happened to Pao (not that I'm defending her in particular, she's pretty dodgy, but the hatred was palpable).
And really, you're on HN, this is not the place where you need to fly the "don't trust the media" flag with such earnestness. I doubt many people here do, certainly not me.
And really, you're on HN, this is not the place where you need to fly the "don't trust the media" flag with such earnestness. I doubt many people here do, certainly not me.
> And really, you're on HN, this is not the place where you need to fly the "don't trust the media" flag with such earnestness. I doubt many people here do, certainly not me.
This is another common trope that happens a lot. We as HN readers are not any more special or immune to proven psychological tactics than anyone else. We are all still humans after all. This elitist sort of viewpoint that HNers are somehow smarter, better, or faster than most people at nearly everything isn't very helpful. I guarantee there are many people here that could benefit from 'basic' knowledge like this, because we all have our biases.
You can know not to trust most media, and apply it to 99.9% of the media outlets you encounter, but if that remaining 0.1% are sources like the New York Times or Fox News, because for whatever reason, your experiences led you to believe they were 'reliable', then knowing that 'you shouldn't trust most media' is useless when those outlets do you a disservice.
This is another common trope that happens a lot. We as HN readers are not any more special or immune to proven psychological tactics than anyone else. We are all still humans after all. This elitist sort of viewpoint that HNers are somehow smarter, better, or faster than most people at nearly everything isn't very helpful. I guarantee there are many people here that could benefit from 'basic' knowledge like this, because we all have our biases.
You can know not to trust most media, and apply it to 99.9% of the media outlets you encounter, but if that remaining 0.1% are sources like the New York Times or Fox News, because for whatever reason, your experiences led you to believe they were 'reliable', then knowing that 'you shouldn't trust most media' is useless when those outlets do you a disservice.
It's not elitist to think that the average HN reader doesn't need a reminder that you shouldn't blindly trust the media interjected into any random discussion that involves the media. Most of us read 1984 in high school, just like you probably did.
What's elitist is to think that the other camp only holds their opinion because they've been duped by the media, and that you're the one that's managed to see through it all with your superior scepticism, which is what generic_user is basically doing with their "The knife cuts both ways" comment.
What's elitist is to think that the other camp only holds their opinion because they've been duped by the media, and that you're the one that's managed to see through it all with your superior scepticism, which is what generic_user is basically doing with their "The knife cuts both ways" comment.
So now we're dropping random controversies in the middle of discussions to try make a point? This post is really attracting the worst in people.
Seriously. Somehow this topic became a slightly less obnoxious Gamergate twittergasm.
So, does anyone have guesses as to what the material issues were in the board wanting her gone? I confess to having little interest in Reddit most of the time, so I haven't paid attention to what's going on there (outside of the recent firing-related explosion).
So, does anyone have guesses as to what the material issues were in the board wanting her gone? I confess to having little interest in Reddit most of the time, so I haven't paid attention to what's going on there (outside of the recent firing-related explosion).
> So, does anyone have guesses as to what the material issues were in the board wanting her gone?
Performance/track record aside, her name had become toxic to reddit. Sometimes you don't clean the stain, you buy a new shirt.
Performance/track record aside, her name had become toxic to reddit. Sometimes you don't clean the stain, you buy a new shirt.
Probably the most agreeable statement here, regardless of which 'side' you stand on.
GG is about ethics in journalism.
[deleted]
> I mean, seriously, what on earth are you addressing here? Who are you talking to?
For anyone that's equally confused, I highly recommend reading the book "Trust Me, I'm Lying": http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulator...
What's happening right now isn't entirely intuitive, so it's understandable to be a bit lost, but what the parent is talking about is a serious, legitimate issue.
For anyone that's equally confused, I highly recommend reading the book "Trust Me, I'm Lying": http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulator...
What's happening right now isn't entirely intuitive, so it's understandable to be a bit lost, but what the parent is talking about is a serious, legitimate issue.
Is it possible to explain it in a few sentences for those of us who are confused but don't wish to read a book?
Pick a topic with many shades of gray. Paint it black and white - preferably around a modern controversial issue (this day and age it's sexism/racism).
Frame the narrative to fit the controversy ("50 white male racist misogynist neck beards' who want to chase women out of tech again!") Ignore the 199,950 shades of gray and all other motivation behind the users and everything else. Zoom in to these 50 people. Cast them in the worst light. Cast Pao as a saint and Reddit as being "in the right" for "standing up to these 50 white male racist misogynist neck beards".
Fan the flames and stir the pot to generate traffic (and ad revenue).
Keep the fire alive as long as possible. You look good and get money. Reddit looks good and gets money. You both win.
Alternatively throw Reddit under the bus as well and find past controversies surrounding Pao. Cover those as well. You'll get more money for this.
As for all the users who aren't the 50 being covered? Fuck'em. You're too busy lining your checkbooks.
Frame the narrative to fit the controversy ("50 white male racist misogynist neck beards' who want to chase women out of tech again!") Ignore the 199,950 shades of gray and all other motivation behind the users and everything else. Zoom in to these 50 people. Cast them in the worst light. Cast Pao as a saint and Reddit as being "in the right" for "standing up to these 50 white male racist misogynist neck beards".
Fan the flames and stir the pot to generate traffic (and ad revenue).
Keep the fire alive as long as possible. You look good and get money. Reddit looks good and gets money. You both win.
Alternatively throw Reddit under the bus as well and find past controversies surrounding Pao. Cover those as well. You'll get more money for this.
As for all the users who aren't the 50 being covered? Fuck'em. You're too busy lining your checkbooks.
You think "the media" is intentionally causing confrontation as part of some collusion with Reddit to make money? Neither Reddit nor journalism generally is particularly profitable.
And isn't painting all of the media in the same cynical light for the actions of, at most, a small minority pretty much exactly what you claim they did to you?
I saw racist and sexist posts personally, so I know that's not a complete fabrication even if not every Redditor holds those beliefs. I found the posts of e.g. Pao as Hitler pretty jarring. If I were writing an article about Reddit and its CEO I probably would have mentioned them, not through any desire to stir trouble and certainly not as part of some money-making conspiracy.
And what does any of this have to do with Sam Altman or Ellen Pao?
And isn't painting all of the media in the same cynical light for the actions of, at most, a small minority pretty much exactly what you claim they did to you?
I saw racist and sexist posts personally, so I know that's not a complete fabrication even if not every Redditor holds those beliefs. I found the posts of e.g. Pao as Hitler pretty jarring. If I were writing an article about Reddit and its CEO I probably would have mentioned them, not through any desire to stir trouble and certainly not as part of some money-making conspiracy.
And what does any of this have to do with Sam Altman or Ellen Pao?
> You think "the media" is intentionally causing confrontation as part of some collusion with Reddit to make money?
GP isn't implying any collusion. The media is intentionally causing confrontation just fine on its own.
> I saw racist and sexist posts personally
Nobody is claiming the hateful stuff didn't exist. But painting "Reddit" as sexist while conveniently ignoring the 90-9-1 rule and focusing on Pao's gender instead of atrocious track record is... in bad taste, to say the least.
GP isn't implying any collusion. The media is intentionally causing confrontation just fine on its own.
> I saw racist and sexist posts personally
Nobody is claiming the hateful stuff didn't exist. But painting "Reddit" as sexist while conveniently ignoring the 90-9-1 rule and focusing on Pao's gender instead of atrocious track record is... in bad taste, to say the least.
It's jarring -- that is, newsworthy -- to see overt sexist or racist remarks with hundreds of upvotes, suggesting at least widespread if not majority support. So, yeah, that fact is going to find its way into many articles.
What is the argument against Pao anyway? It seems like the only non-personal complaints I've heard are that FatPeopleHate was banned and a well-liked moderator was fired on her watch. Is there more to it?
What is the argument against Pao anyway? It seems like the only non-personal complaints I've heard are that FatPeopleHate was banned and a well-liked moderator was fired on her watch. Is there more to it?
There's lots more to it. While I agree with the banning of FPH, the underlying policy that justified it was deeply flawed. The harassment policy was woefully vague to the point of absurdity.
There's the fact that she promised better moderator tools something like 6 months ago, and as we found out today, only last week dedicated employees to work on it; after the defaults revolted.
This is a small subset of all of the complaints of reddit's direction under Pao's leadership.
Honestly, I think she's a lovely person. I don't think she deserves a percent of the shit that's been thrown her way, but she definitely hasn't been an efficient CEO for reddit.
There's the fact that she promised better moderator tools something like 6 months ago, and as we found out today, only last week dedicated employees to work on it; after the defaults revolted.
This is a small subset of all of the complaints of reddit's direction under Pao's leadership.
Honestly, I think she's a lovely person. I don't think she deserves a percent of the shit that's been thrown her way, but she definitely hasn't been an efficient CEO for reddit.
> There's lots more to it
and by lots you mean...that's about it. Honestly if "There's the fact that she promised better moderator tools something like 6 months ago" was a good criteria for booting a CEO, Reddit would have had ~20 CEOs by now.
That was the actual problem, that mods have never had the tools they need, but that's not why she's resigning/being fired.
and by lots you mean...that's about it. Honestly if "There's the fact that she promised better moderator tools something like 6 months ago" was a good criteria for booting a CEO, Reddit would have had ~20 CEOs by now.
That was the actual problem, that mods have never had the tools they need, but that's not why she's resigning/being fired.
No, there's more to it. Because I don't want to drag her personal life into it (which does play a role), there were the huge problems with the AMA app, the new privacy policy (which while I agreed with, many didnt), Reddit Notes (the reddit cryptocurrency; perhaps the most jaw-droppingly stupid move in her tenure), and really, many more things.
That's it ?
You must be detached from reality and what a CEO does if you think those deserve being fired for. And seriously even insinuating that her personal life has anything to do with this is frankly disgusting behaviour.
You must be detached from reality and what a CEO does if you think those deserve being fired for. And seriously even insinuating that her personal life has anything to do with this is frankly disgusting behaviour.
What you're describing are basically non-events in the history of bad decisions made at reddit (and like half of them come from Yishan's tenure, anyways). And reddit survived just fine every time, mind you.
There really wasn't anything overly egregious here except an angry internet mob. If it weren't for the subreddit blackout (which, again, was from an issue boiling over for years) timed so soon after the FPH shutdown I would give good odds it would have dissipated and we wouldn't be seeing this resignation today.
There really wasn't anything overly egregious here except an angry internet mob. If it weren't for the subreddit blackout (which, again, was from an issue boiling over for years) timed so soon after the FPH shutdown I would give good odds it would have dissipated and we wouldn't be seeing this resignation today.
Victoria's firing was the final straw. The general complaint is that moderators are in an abusive unpaid relationship with reddit and are treated like crap, that she is/was completely out of touch with the reddit userbase (going so far as posting a link to her own inbox in /r/self in a grandma-emailing-c:\\paths.jpg fashion; something she later explained as an administrative mishap), that she got rid of well-liked programs such as redditgifts and was behind other much less popular programs and very unpopular decisions on the site. And the whole lawsuit thing didn't help, either.
She doesn't deserve the blame for all of it, but things easily snowball on reddit. Once the mob finds its pitchforks, there's no stopping it. That's not unique to reddit in any way.
She doesn't deserve the blame for all of it, but things easily snowball on reddit. Once the mob finds its pitchforks, there's no stopping it. That's not unique to reddit in any way.
redditgifts seems to be online... are they not affiliated with reddit anymore?
>It's jarring -- that is, newsworthy -- to see overt sexist or racist remarks with hundreds of upvotes, suggesting at least widespread if not majority support. So, yeah, that fact is going to find its way into many articles.
There is a polarising effect which occurs in these kinds of threads (or communities discussions as a whole): once the vitriol has met a critical mass the more moderate people tend to just avoid the whole thing (not participating, likely not even observing). So all that's left are the extremists who keep perpetuating it.
There is a polarising effect which occurs in these kinds of threads (or communities discussions as a whole): once the vitriol has met a critical mass the more moderate people tend to just avoid the whole thing (not participating, likely not even observing). So all that's left are the extremists who keep perpetuating it.
Well said; there's a very strong snowball effect on online forums, which instant communication amplifies greatly.
Especially "the last guy said x, so x+1 is ok to say", followed by "the last guy said x+1, so x+2 is ok to say".
Especially "the last guy said x, so x+1 is ok to say", followed by "the last guy said x+1, so x+2 is ok to say".
GP isn't implying any collusion. The media is intentionally causing confrontation just fine on its own.
Do you have any evidence of this?
atrocious track record
Like what? That she shut down a forum called "Fat people hate", where posters singled out the obese for vicious, personal online harrassment?
is... in bad taste, to say the least
Do you even understand what that means? Criticising Reddit or its community is in bad taste? Seriously?
Do you have any evidence of this?
atrocious track record
Like what? That she shut down a forum called "Fat people hate", where posters singled out the obese for vicious, personal online harrassment?
is... in bad taste, to say the least
Do you even understand what that means? Criticising Reddit or its community is in bad taste? Seriously?
> Like what? That she shut down a forum called "Fat people hate", where posters singled out the obese for online harrassment?
You don't know me. You have no idea what my feelings are regarding FPH. Yet, you make assumptions.
So now we got that out of the way, hi, I'm Jerry, and I hated FPH and didn't give a rat's arse about its shutdown. Had Pao made only that one decision in her two years as CEO, reddit would have bigger problems on its hands.
Thankfully, I just wrote a reply to someone else's comment right below yours - a much nicer comment which asks a question without making aggressive assumptions - addressing your actual question. Take a look.
> Criticising Reddit or its community is in bad taste? Seriously?
The thing with rephrasing what someone else said and appending "Seriously?" is it always goes your way, because you get to decide how you rephrase it. Good thing again that I didn't say "Criticising Reddit or its community is in bad taste". I said:
> painting "Reddit" as sexist while conveniently ignoring the 90-9-1 rule and focusing on Pao's gender instead of atrocious track record [is in bad taste].
In other words, trying to turn millions of people into sexist pigs by ignoring how such communities function is in bad taste. Do you disagree?
You don't know me. You have no idea what my feelings are regarding FPH. Yet, you make assumptions.
So now we got that out of the way, hi, I'm Jerry, and I hated FPH and didn't give a rat's arse about its shutdown. Had Pao made only that one decision in her two years as CEO, reddit would have bigger problems on its hands.
Thankfully, I just wrote a reply to someone else's comment right below yours - a much nicer comment which asks a question without making aggressive assumptions - addressing your actual question. Take a look.
> Criticising Reddit or its community is in bad taste? Seriously?
The thing with rephrasing what someone else said and appending "Seriously?" is it always goes your way, because you get to decide how you rephrase it. Good thing again that I didn't say "Criticising Reddit or its community is in bad taste". I said:
> painting "Reddit" as sexist while conveniently ignoring the 90-9-1 rule and focusing on Pao's gender instead of atrocious track record [is in bad taste].
In other words, trying to turn millions of people into sexist pigs by ignoring how such communities function is in bad taste. Do you disagree?
> Had Pao made only that one decision in her two years as CEO, reddit would have bigger problems on its hands.
Pao wasn't CEO for even a full year.
Pao wasn't CEO for even a full year.
You're right, I was confused because she joined reddit in 2013. My comment still applies.
> And isn't painting all of the media in the same cynical light for the actions of, at most, a small minority pretty much exactly what you claim they did to you?
Of course. No one's evil, everything's broken. The reason offensive and controversial discussions are so common throughout the interent is that they self-perpetuate; something makes you angry and you make a post 'debunking' it, that makes someone else angry and they reply; the more efficient posts at making people angry get more replies, and so are brought into prominence.
Thus the virus spreads.
Of course. No one's evil, everything's broken. The reason offensive and controversial discussions are so common throughout the interent is that they self-perpetuate; something makes you angry and you make a post 'debunking' it, that makes someone else angry and they reply; the more efficient posts at making people angry get more replies, and so are brought into prominence.
Thus the virus spreads.
did you happen to miss how sites like the NYTimes and such were disappointed with how her case played out? How that and and another played out? They have their playbook and cannot see outside of it to the point they are no longer able to see the world for what it is.
Social Justice has infected the media to the point that anything contrary to the desired story is either ignored, recast, or dismissed. You can go google the Confederate flag issue and find far too many stories trying to link Republicans with it when it was Democrat politicians who put it up fifty years ago and kept it there; apparently it was just too good an opportunity to slander the Republicans for something the Democrats didn't fix for the fifty plus years they controlled most of those states.
So yeah, the media intentionally causes confrontation and likely because the same focus groups they use/rely on are merely political machines created to drive people one way or another. Politicians and the media both need a divided population and they both damn well do their best to get it.
Social Justice has infected the media to the point that anything contrary to the desired story is either ignored, recast, or dismissed. You can go google the Confederate flag issue and find far too many stories trying to link Republicans with it when it was Democrat politicians who put it up fifty years ago and kept it there; apparently it was just too good an opportunity to slander the Republicans for something the Democrats didn't fix for the fifty plus years they controlled most of those states.
So yeah, the media intentionally causes confrontation and likely because the same focus groups they use/rely on are merely political machines created to drive people one way or another. Politicians and the media both need a divided population and they both damn well do their best to get it.
> I saw racist and sexist posts personally
Honestly Reddit in general could be taken as "racist and sexist" by an outsider. By an outsider. The humor tends to be sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top, and in-group. For example any references to /r/pyongyang can be written off, 99% of the time it's part of a dedicated running joke that's not intentionally malicious. Pao as Hitler is jarring? You seem naively unfamiliar with Reddit.
Honestly Reddit in general could be taken as "racist and sexist" by an outsider. By an outsider. The humor tends to be sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top, and in-group. For example any references to /r/pyongyang can be written off, 99% of the time it's part of a dedicated running joke that's not intentionally malicious. Pao as Hitler is jarring? You seem naively unfamiliar with Reddit.
> Honestly Reddit in general could be taken as "racist and sexist" by an outsider.
Yeah. That's a problem. Probably Reddit's biggest problem.
Yeah. That's a problem. Probably Reddit's biggest problem.
Again, what does that have to do with Sam's statement?
Basically, the nature of the internet and how it enables individuals to have much louder voices, has significant implications for the integrity and expectations of what we used to consider "news". The point being that the old idea of 'news' as many of us are used to, as being something that's even semi reliable, needs some serious rethinking, because 'news' undergoes significantly less curation now that outlets are competing against the lightning pace of social media.
The author gives his own various experiences as examples of how this new style of information flow in the media industry is easily exploitable, and frankly, it's quite scary. Not just because of what he could do, but because how natural and subtle it all the 'propaganda' seemed.
The author gives his own various experiences as examples of how this new style of information flow in the media industry is easily exploitable, and frankly, it's quite scary. Not just because of what he could do, but because how natural and subtle it all the 'propaganda' seemed.
So... news sites are getting less reliable. Ok. What does that have to do with Ellen Pao or the new CEO?
You do realize you're commenting on a HN thread for a New York Times piece, right?
A piece that casually included terms such as "racist" and "misogynistic" as if they were describing the weather. If those terms do sound natural enough to use in something as casual as describing the weather, then congratulations, you've discovered the dangers that this book tried to highlight.
A piece that casually included terms such as "racist" and "misogynistic" as if they were describing the weather. If those terms do sound natural enough to use in something as casual as describing the weather, then congratulations, you've discovered the dangers that this book tried to highlight.
You lost me. What is the linked article supposed to be an example of? Would we be having a different conversation if the thread linked to the Reddit announcement instead?
And I don't think racism or sexism is something to be taken lightly. I don't think the New York Times does either, which is probably why the fact that there were racist and misogynistic posts about Ellen Pao was noteworthy enough to include in 8th graf of the article.
And I don't think racism or sexism is something to be taken lightly. I don't think the New York Times does either, which is probably why the fact that there were racist and misogynistic posts about Ellen Pao was noteworthy enough to include in 8th graf of the article.
> What is the linked article supposed to be an example of?
It's an example of exactly what the book talks about: subtle, lightly filtered "news".
> Would we be having a different conversation if the thread linked to the Reddit announcement instead?
No, because if you read my previous summary of the book, you would realize that the mechanisms in these two outlets is exactly the same. A single highly emphasized voice/view, with little curation/filtering, being projected loudly through network effects.
If you're still unsure about what I'm talking about, or how it fits in, I can only recommend that you pick up the book. It's really quite an interesting and quick read. And interestingly, the issue you're having of having difficulty seeing what I'm talking about, is basically exactly what the book talks about.
It's an example of exactly what the book talks about: subtle, lightly filtered "news".
> Would we be having a different conversation if the thread linked to the Reddit announcement instead?
No, because if you read my previous summary of the book, you would realize that the mechanisms in these two outlets is exactly the same. A single highly emphasized voice/view, with little curation/filtering, being projected loudly through network effects.
If you're still unsure about what I'm talking about, or how it fits in, I can only recommend that you pick up the book. It's really quite an interesting and quick read. And interestingly, the issue you're having of having difficulty seeing what I'm talking about, is basically exactly what the book talks about.
Are those "racist" and "misogynistic" claims false? Judging by the top post(s), here https://www.reddit.com/r/Ellenpaoinaction/top/?sort=top&t=al... I would say no. That's pretty "racist" and "misogynistic". There was another sub reddit that was worse, but I can't seem to find it on my phone.
If you think the NYT article made those claims lightly (I don't) then I think that says more about the state of the Internet and its communities in general (or perhaps just you) rather than "The Media"
If you think the NYT article made those claims lightly (I don't) then I think that says more about the state of the Internet and its communities in general (or perhaps just you) rather than "The Media"
The point isn't whether it's "true" or "false", because that will vary depending on who you ask. Yes, even people you find disgusting are legitimate human beings with opinions too. Who are any of us to decide what is "right" or "wrong"? Good journalism is supposed to let you make those decisions on your own, not give them to you.
So in order to be good journalism, it must be objective, and to not describe things in terms of loaded phrases that convey any opinions. The opinions may be right, or they may be wrong, but that has nothing to do with the problem. The problem is the one highlighted in the book, which is that our news isn't getting properly filtered, and as a result, we're being shown rather restricted points of view in our media.
If current media organizations were run with proper journalistic merit, almost 99% of what gets published out there as 'news', would be filed in the editorials section.
So in order to be good journalism, it must be objective, and to not describe things in terms of loaded phrases that convey any opinions. The opinions may be right, or they may be wrong, but that has nothing to do with the problem. The problem is the one highlighted in the book, which is that our news isn't getting properly filtered, and as a result, we're being shown rather restricted points of view in our media.
If current media organizations were run with proper journalistic merit, almost 99% of what gets published out there as 'news', would be filed in the editorials section.
> The point isn't whether it's "true" or "false", because that will vary depending on who you ask.
Please, it seems like you're the one who needs to be honest. The most vocal, outraged reddit users are clearly sexist.
Here's the top most used words in the petition. Sure, let's NOT use the word "sexism" here, since it's kind of unclear.
https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/3cetav/i_made_...
Please, it seems like you're the one who needs to be honest. The most vocal, outraged reddit users are clearly sexist.
Here's the top most used words in the petition. Sure, let's NOT use the word "sexism" here, since it's kind of unclear.
https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/3cetav/i_made_...
It seems you missed what I tried to convey. I explicitly stated that the issue is objectiveness, and subjective terms, by definition cannot be objective. You can gather all the data in the world about reddit users and their mannerisms, but that does not change the way the logic behind 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' work.
I think the overwhelming majority of our society will agree that the mentioned behaviour was misogynistic. That makes it a fairly objective statement. You can still disagree with it (in the same way people disagree with other objective statements, like vaccines and autism), but that doesn't make it subjective.
It has democratized the distribution of information or opinion. In the old days, as A.J. Liebling said, "The freedom of the press applies mainly to the man who owns one." (Quoted from memory, so probably a bit wrong.) Those men, and the occasional woman, were a very mixed lot.
I'd also appreciate it. Just note many of our minds won't be blown by the idea that the media is used to manipulate, and maybe focus on explaining what this has to do with nhf's points that this is a good move on reddit's part and that they were glad that Sam explicitly called out recent trends in Reddit discourse.
> now predictable narrative of '50 white male racist misogynist neck beards' who want to chase women out of tech again
This is a pretty accurate narrative. You may not agree, but casual misogyny is incredibly pervasive on most defaults, and it's fairly prevalent within the smaller, community-based subs as well.
> small group of militant activists trying to silence people who they disagree with
If you're referring to SRS, they're annoying and take themselves far too seriously, but as far as I know they don't try to silence anyone.
> The most critical things against Pao and her husband I have seen are posts about there phony extortion sexism and racism law suits.
I'm not even going to address how laughably absurd your characterization of consistent harassment, abuse, and terrifyingly legitimate rape and death threats as "criticism" is. Most people were upset with Pao because she was part of an executive decision to shut down FatPeopleHate and a couple of other abusive subreddits. It's quite a stretch to say that she was solely responsible for this decision, and even then, it's sobering that people would respond with scathing, fiery, and highly toxic personal and threatening attacks on a decision that was intended to help people be kinder to each other -- and worse, lobbed on someone that had at most 2/5ths of the executive power to make that decision.
The media didn't turn the shaky relationship between reddit's users and their administrators into a black-and-white affair. Reddit itself did, by using Pao as a scapegoat to attack everything they saw as antithetical to freedom of hatred and abuse under the guise of "free speech."
This is a pretty accurate narrative. You may not agree, but casual misogyny is incredibly pervasive on most defaults, and it's fairly prevalent within the smaller, community-based subs as well.
> small group of militant activists trying to silence people who they disagree with
If you're referring to SRS, they're annoying and take themselves far too seriously, but as far as I know they don't try to silence anyone.
> The most critical things against Pao and her husband I have seen are posts about there phony extortion sexism and racism law suits.
I'm not even going to address how laughably absurd your characterization of consistent harassment, abuse, and terrifyingly legitimate rape and death threats as "criticism" is. Most people were upset with Pao because she was part of an executive decision to shut down FatPeopleHate and a couple of other abusive subreddits. It's quite a stretch to say that she was solely responsible for this decision, and even then, it's sobering that people would respond with scathing, fiery, and highly toxic personal and threatening attacks on a decision that was intended to help people be kinder to each other -- and worse, lobbed on someone that had at most 2/5ths of the executive power to make that decision.
The media didn't turn the shaky relationship between reddit's users and their administrators into a black-and-white affair. Reddit itself did, by using Pao as a scapegoat to attack everything they saw as antithetical to freedom of hatred and abuse under the guise of "free speech."
> If you're referring to SRS, they're annoying and take themselves far too seriously, but as far as I know they don't try to silence anyone.
I'm a feminist,and can't stand a lot of the stuff that goes on on reddit.
That said, censorship on that website is rampant. Reddit is trying to monetize, and that means stifling speech, especially that speech critical of corporate governance.
The issue isn't as black and white as you make it. There are people with legitimate grievances. And there are people who are being sexist pigs.
Reddit will tell their userbase that the whole fiasco was Pao's fault. They will tell the board and investors that the userbase is sexist.
They think it's win win, but they are on a sinking ship.
I'm a feminist,and can't stand a lot of the stuff that goes on on reddit.
That said, censorship on that website is rampant. Reddit is trying to monetize, and that means stifling speech, especially that speech critical of corporate governance.
The issue isn't as black and white as you make it. There are people with legitimate grievances. And there are people who are being sexist pigs.
Reddit will tell their userbase that the whole fiasco was Pao's fault. They will tell the board and investors that the userbase is sexist.
They think it's win win, but they are on a sinking ship.
But Reddit wasn't attacking corporatocracy or actual censorship. They were just trying to defend their right to be dicks to other people through abusive and hateful subs.
The right to free speech is not the right to speech without consequence. And what obligation does reddit have to preserve "free speech" in the first place? They run the website and it is fully up to them what gets filtered through and what sticks. It's not beholden to the first amendment.
The right to free speech is not the right to speech without consequence. And what obligation does reddit have to preserve "free speech" in the first place? They run the website and it is fully up to them what gets filtered through and what sticks. It's not beholden to the first amendment.
> But Reddit wasn't attacking corporatocracy or actual censorship.
Are you sure? I frankly saw much more of this than the other. I, of course, have a bias, but I think people were focused on censorship.
And you're right. Reddit doesn't owe anyone free speech. But with all due respect, that's the product that they developed. Crowdsourced content aggregation is a useful service, but it's one that is entirely dependent on having "free speech".
If corporations or government can shape the dialogue on a website like reddit, it fundamentally undermines the purpose of having a service that aggregates upvotes.
Reddit can control and censor all they want. But it will take them from having a unique product and niche to being another viral editorial board in a sea of crappy viral editorial boards.
People have the right to free speech. People have the right to be offended by things. And people have a right to leave a service when it stops existing as it once did.
Are you sure? I frankly saw much more of this than the other. I, of course, have a bias, but I think people were focused on censorship.
And you're right. Reddit doesn't owe anyone free speech. But with all due respect, that's the product that they developed. Crowdsourced content aggregation is a useful service, but it's one that is entirely dependent on having "free speech".
If corporations or government can shape the dialogue on a website like reddit, it fundamentally undermines the purpose of having a service that aggregates upvotes.
Reddit can control and censor all they want. But it will take them from having a unique product and niche to being another viral editorial board in a sea of crappy viral editorial boards.
People have the right to free speech. People have the right to be offended by things. And people have a right to leave a service when it stops existing as it once did.
> but as far as I know they don't try to silence anyone.
See:
Project Panda, PREDDITORs, Their brigades (https://www.reddit.com/r/SRSsucks/comments/14iwvx/its_that_t...), the fact that they are "exempt from the non participation" requirement when linking to other subs.
See:
Project Panda, PREDDITORs, Their brigades (https://www.reddit.com/r/SRSsucks/comments/14iwvx/its_that_t...), the fact that they are "exempt from the non participation" requirement when linking to other subs.
That's a two year old link to a sub whose whole intent is to be as diametrically opposed to the SRS sub as possible. If you're trying to strike a point here, I think it'd be much more effective to link to something that's more impartial and up-to-date.
I completely agree with you. That was nothing but a lazy search. I'm not heavily invested in the sub. However to claim the sub's intent is to be "diametrically opposed to SRS' is incorrect. It has not war against SRS. It's a watch dog.
I really detest the term "casual misogyny", as if everyone is living their lives just "casually" having this deep hatred for women. It so easily deflects any criticism or real discussion because well obviously they're all just casual misogynists.
I think people confuse making some jokes about women with "casual misogyny." People make jokes about everything, including stereotypes of women. Maybe that's in poor taste, and maybe they deserve to be called out for that if it's inappropriate, but it certainly doesn't mean they hate women.
I think people confuse making some jokes about women with "casual misogyny." People make jokes about everything, including stereotypes of women. Maybe that's in poor taste, and maybe they deserve to be called out for that if it's inappropriate, but it certainly doesn't mean they hate women.
Didn't Ellen Pao her self claim that the racists and misogynists are a small minority?
Regardless of the actual numbers (I have no idea what they are), I wouldn't expect the CEO of Reddit to effectively announce to prospective advertisers that their user base was a bunch of racists.
Her actual claim was that the people who are critical of her and the changes Reddit made are a minority. For example, http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/reddit-users-turn-... and http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/technology/reddit-moderato... for example.
Being a racist or mysogynist is unrelated to being critical of or disagreeing with how she was managing Reddit as a business.
Being a racist or mysogynist is unrelated to being critical of or disagreeing with how she was managing Reddit as a business.
[deleted]
"No, don't you see? This is all about ethics in game journalism."
My favorite thing about Pao's loudest critics are how bad they are --- like, "ethics in gaming journalism" bad --- at concealing their agenda. "there phony extortion sexism and racism law suits", "even the media has to admit these things are facts". Real slick, there.
I don't understand the preoccupation with the "media." It doesn't seem to me like news sites had much to do with this saga.
Is there a mountain of unfair coverage I didn't see? It seems kind of obvious that Reddit is much more "the media" than any clickbait news site. And wasn't the whole point of "blacking out" subreddits to gain media attention?
Is there a mountain of unfair coverage I didn't see? It seems kind of obvious that Reddit is much more "the media" than any clickbait news site. And wasn't the whole point of "blacking out" subreddits to gain media attention?
There are dozens of posts with 1000+ upvotes comparing Ellen with Hitler. As far as I can tell, there's something larger and terrible going on within reddit's community.
Bush was compared to Hitler endlessly. But that probably didn't bother you. Public figures, especially unpopular ones, are subject to ridicule. It happens.
You mean there might be thousands of jerks in a population that is measured in 9 figures? Say it ain't so!
> dozens of posts
Literally (in the actual sense of this word) there are 160 million unique users on reddit monthly. Personally, I applaud free speech even when it is extremely hateful as I would not trade my right to speak my mind for protection from others voices[0]. However, even if I didn't believe that, I do believe that it is wrong to judge a large group of people based on the actions of a small minority.
[0] I get that the websites are private, before anyone points that out.
Literally (in the actual sense of this word) there are 160 million unique users on reddit monthly. Personally, I applaud free speech even when it is extremely hateful as I would not trade my right to speak my mind for protection from others voices[0]. However, even if I didn't believe that, I do believe that it is wrong to judge a large group of people based on the actions of a small minority.
[0] I get that the websites are private, before anyone points that out.
Could you possibly believe many of those same people also post here?! HN would just flag and ban you for saying it right off that bat.
Most people you know are in some form or fashion, an asshole. They quietly be a racist, sexist, nationalist to an extreme, have a fetish far beyond the norm, or other strange or socially unacceptable behavior. They just don't personally show it to you to avoid the judgement. It just seems like there are a whole lot more of them on Reddit because Reddit doesn't silence them. Let that settle in for a little bit. It's the anti-gay pastor that gets caught with a man, for example. That said, people are allowed to show their more negative sides without any repercussions things can become problematic and the more extreme can take over a community if enabled.
Most people you know are in some form or fashion, an asshole. They quietly be a racist, sexist, nationalist to an extreme, have a fetish far beyond the norm, or other strange or socially unacceptable behavior. They just don't personally show it to you to avoid the judgement. It just seems like there are a whole lot more of them on Reddit because Reddit doesn't silence them. Let that settle in for a little bit. It's the anti-gay pastor that gets caught with a man, for example. That said, people are allowed to show their more negative sides without any repercussions things can become problematic and the more extreme can take over a community if enabled.
> People are sick and tired of ... a small group of militant activists trying to silence people who they disagree with.
You're damn right people are tired of the shrill MRAs with their short-sighted, selfish, and immature wails, who can't think of anyone but themselves. They're a small group of militant activists crying over what amounts to a skinned knee, always trying to shout down other people, but never being pro-active and creating events of their own.
You're damn right people are tired of the shrill MRAs with their short-sighted, selfish, and immature wails, who can't think of anyone but themselves. They're a small group of militant activists crying over what amounts to a skinned knee, always trying to shout down other people, but never being pro-active and creating events of their own.
Honest question, what do you think is an appropriate set of measures to curtail [people you don't like] on the internet? Do you believe the internet should be a safe space?
No, I don't think the internet should be sanitised. But at the same time, I find the MRA shrill talking-points to be of a pretty shallow depth, and, as a group, they're pretty vocally violent. In contrast, I find feminist talking-points to have a fair amount of depth to them. Those feminists who conduct themselves in the shrill manner that MRAs do are just as bad, but when you take those kinds of people away and look at what's left over, it's quite different.
So how should you counter people you don't like? Well, by trying to be mature, and if you fail, trying for better next time. Death threats and rape threats are never okay. Especially if the person in question is not forcing themselves into your life - people go to reddit, reddit does not force themselves into living rooms and makes you read it, nor do many people pay for it.
For the record, I am a white male. I loathe the MRA crowd because they're purely reactionary. Men do have systemic social issues that need addressing, but in general, the MRA crowd isn't actually interested in exploring, discussing, and addressing the issues. Instead, they use men's issues as a weapon with which to beat down discussion that other people are having; there is very little that is proactive in that crowd. For example, here on HN, pretty much all the men's rights stuff has been presented as some sort of counterpoint to a perceived feminist slight... yet these same shrill voices that demand we pay attention to the issues faced by men... never post articles in their own right, only weaponised comments to win internet points.
Threats of violence are never okay unless you're being physically threatened. Immature commentary should never be at the forefront of a social movement, since it's never going to solve root causes and can only provide a superficial salve. These things are destructive, and are all about making the other side lose - an ideal outcome is a win-win situation, though that's not always possible, of course.
So how should you counter people you don't like? Well, by trying to be mature, and if you fail, trying for better next time. Death threats and rape threats are never okay. Especially if the person in question is not forcing themselves into your life - people go to reddit, reddit does not force themselves into living rooms and makes you read it, nor do many people pay for it.
For the record, I am a white male. I loathe the MRA crowd because they're purely reactionary. Men do have systemic social issues that need addressing, but in general, the MRA crowd isn't actually interested in exploring, discussing, and addressing the issues. Instead, they use men's issues as a weapon with which to beat down discussion that other people are having; there is very little that is proactive in that crowd. For example, here on HN, pretty much all the men's rights stuff has been presented as some sort of counterpoint to a perceived feminist slight... yet these same shrill voices that demand we pay attention to the issues faced by men... never post articles in their own right, only weaponised comments to win internet points.
Threats of violence are never okay unless you're being physically threatened. Immature commentary should never be at the forefront of a social movement, since it's never going to solve root causes and can only provide a superficial salve. These things are destructive, and are all about making the other side lose - an ideal outcome is a win-win situation, though that's not always possible, of course.
I found that quite rational and civil, which is more I can say for any other discussion I have ever seen about this subject matter.
> never post articles in their own right, only weaponised comments to win internet points.
On balance I think things are fairly equal, honestly women might be slightly better off. There is a very loud minority angrily decrying people who post pro-male articles and such, and the news and media are not interested in it unless it is to point out that he was a MRA killer from 4chan.
That being said, I have become apathetic to these tropic debates (women in tech, gamergate, feminism v antifeminsim, etc) and now just largely support free speech and freedom of expression. This has the potential to make many people upset, and a select few targets of extreme harassment. On balance, however I think it is the most powerful tool in our society.
Your civil comment was quite a nice departure from my regular observations, cheers.
> never post articles in their own right, only weaponised comments to win internet points.
On balance I think things are fairly equal, honestly women might be slightly better off. There is a very loud minority angrily decrying people who post pro-male articles and such, and the news and media are not interested in it unless it is to point out that he was a MRA killer from 4chan.
That being said, I have become apathetic to these tropic debates (women in tech, gamergate, feminism v antifeminsim, etc) and now just largely support free speech and freedom of expression. This has the potential to make many people upset, and a select few targets of extreme harassment. On balance, however I think it is the most powerful tool in our society.
Your civil comment was quite a nice departure from my regular observations, cheers.
Is there a larger red flag for the aggrieved tech male to wave these days than whinging about "ethics" in the media?
> The most critical things against Pao and her husband I have seen are posts about there phony extortion sexism and racism law suits
Why the fuck is someone else's sexual harassment lawsuit with their former employer any of your concern? Unless you have a political agenda against women who complain about sexual harassment.
Why the fuck is someone else's sexual harassment lawsuit with their former employer any of your concern? Unless you have a political agenda against women who complain about sexual harassment.
This comment has no relevance to the top comment it replied to. When we see people doing that, we detach the subthread from its parent.
PR that comes out of corporations cannot be trusted. We cannot trust Altman is being honest that he appreciated her efforts. We can't trust that her and her husband were in love. All of this that comes out of spokesmen is carefully crafted as a result of a numbers game.
When do we hear "so and so CEO did a horrible job and was forced out by the board."? Never. So are we to believe there is no such thing as a terrible CEO? Will we hear Sam saying "We made a terrible decision putting her in charge."? Never. Even if it was the actual truth.
Pao does not get a pass on this dynamic for being a woman.
When do we hear "so and so CEO did a horrible job and was forced out by the board."? Never. So are we to believe there is no such thing as a terrible CEO? Will we hear Sam saying "We made a terrible decision putting her in charge."? Never. Even if it was the actual truth.
Pao does not get a pass on this dynamic for being a woman.
> Pao does not get a pass on this dynamic for being a woman.
It seems like she's been the subject of vitriol primarily for being a woman, since a lot of the vitriol predates the past few days.
It seems like she's been the subject of vitriol primarily for being a woman, since a lot of the vitriol predates the past few days.
As someone who has only watched this popcorn feast, I have the sense that she was the subject of vitriol primarily for taking actions that people didn't like. Many of the insults may well have targeted her gender, but that is not the same thing at all.
I have seen literally no evidence that she was harassed simply for being a woman.
I have seen literally no evidence that she was harassed simply for being a woman.
It seems like the major source of antipathy towards her was the firing of Victoria Taylor, which happened on her watch, but was actually done by a man who is still at the company, and nobody seems to want him fired. It's entirely possible I have some or all of my facts wrong, but this is what I understand to be the case.
The point of leadership is to deal with these sorts of issues, and take those hits when they don't pan out. It's like having your cake and eating it. On the one hand, we use the excuse: "just doing his/her job" or "just following orders", and then on the other hand: "Happened on his/her watch, by a subordinate", as if it makes it okay. The blame needs to be shared (if appropriate), and not shoved around depending on which side we are currently arguing for/against.
The buck stops with the CEO.
That's when most people started hearing about it outside of Reddit, but I guarantee there is been strong hate before any of that happened. And it really does seem gender-based, or at least those are all the primary attacks.
Really? What are the decisions she has made that seem so substantially larger than past Reddit CEO mistakes? Worse than selling to Conde Nast? Worse than closing subreddits for content?
To me the uptick in personal insults seems obvious, and uncorrelated to a long history of questionable decisions by Reddit admins. Although I think her being labelled as a feminist false accuser is as much the reason as her being a woman.
To me the uptick in personal insults seems obvious, and uncorrelated to a long history of questionable decisions by Reddit admins. Although I think her being labelled as a feminist false accuser is as much the reason as her being a woman.
Probably the fact that she's relatively new and seen as an outside by most in the community who wants to "ban behaviour" yet goes after ideas (see: /r/fatpeoplehate drama, while subreddits like /r/coontown and other racist shitholes were allowed to stay). Their stance on brigading that seems to not apply to /r/shitredditsays. People seemingly shadowbanned for speaking their minds. Her lawsuit (that she rightly lost) against her former employer where she claimed her gender was the reason she wasn't promoted?
Pao was the face of reddit as CEO and had to rightly "face the music", not because she's a woman. I find it incredible to see things boiled down to "they hate her cuz she's a gurl".
Pao was the face of reddit as CEO and had to rightly "face the music", not because she's a woman. I find it incredible to see things boiled down to "they hate her cuz she's a gurl".
> I have seen literally no evidence that she was harassed simply for being a woman.
Well, the litmus test can't be simply whether the harassment solely targeted her gender and nothing else. Sexism (and other forms of bigotry) have a more insidious nature to them.
Well, the litmus test can't be simply whether the harassment solely targeted her gender and nothing else. Sexism (and other forms of bigotry) have a more insidious nature to them.
I didn't say there wasn't sexism. I do indeed believe that gendered insults are the result of sexism. I am, however, stating that the genesis of the entire Ellen Pao affair seemed to be about her actions, not her womanhood.
I just think it's important that we don't gloss over the possibility that the level of criticism and outrage could very well have been exaggerated as a result of latent/subconscious sexism.
I think it's much more likely that the amplification of criticism and outrage was catalyzed by her high-visibility public image stemming from the KP trial. She came out looking (IMO) like a vindictive, petty, and greedy person. Whether that's true or not, I suspect that image was then projected onto her role as Reddit's CEO. The kind of insults she got were absolutely driven by some of the most vile and reprehensible expressions of sexism, but I think it was more that Pao was an unsympathetic person who made an easy target for sexists, than that some latent sexism caused otherwise-normal reddit users to turn against her.
I don't think she was responsible for nearly so much of the stuff Reddit reacted negatively to over the course of her tenure as some would think, but I think the primary blame for that perception lies with Reddit's leadership as a whole and their astounding lack of communication to their audience. They knew that Pao had been the subject of a high-visibility lawsuit heavily steeped in social justice implications, which she rather badly lost - it doesn't take a PR genius to think that if you start introducing sweeping social justice-driven changes to your site while she's in office as CEO, people are going to presume that she's the one driving them. That could have been trivially defused by saying "This was a decision made by our board" or "This initiative is something we've been working on for the past 3 years", rather than just sitting by and letting the bogeyman grow and grow.
As another example, as best I can tell, Ohanin let Pao take all the heat for Victoria Taylor's firing, and then clarified that he was the one who made the decision to terminate her only after Pao had resigned. A huge amount of unrest could have been deflected off of Pao if Ohanin had said "Hey, I'm the one that made this decision", but that wasn't said (if I'm wrong, please let me know; the first reference I saw to this admission was timestamped around ~1h ago). In fact, reddit's leadership as a whole was extremely wishy-washy and vague about the whole thing, despite the fact that it upset the volunteer base that makes reddit usable enough to incite mini-revolt.
Leaping to claims of sexism seems lazy and just a little-too-convenient for me. I think that if her husband had been in the CEO role and the same things had happened, given his PR image problems, you'd have seen the same magnitude of criticism and outrage (but then, of course, people would level claims of racism as the cause, which I think would have been equally as wrong).
I don't think she was responsible for nearly so much of the stuff Reddit reacted negatively to over the course of her tenure as some would think, but I think the primary blame for that perception lies with Reddit's leadership as a whole and their astounding lack of communication to their audience. They knew that Pao had been the subject of a high-visibility lawsuit heavily steeped in social justice implications, which she rather badly lost - it doesn't take a PR genius to think that if you start introducing sweeping social justice-driven changes to your site while she's in office as CEO, people are going to presume that she's the one driving them. That could have been trivially defused by saying "This was a decision made by our board" or "This initiative is something we've been working on for the past 3 years", rather than just sitting by and letting the bogeyman grow and grow.
As another example, as best I can tell, Ohanin let Pao take all the heat for Victoria Taylor's firing, and then clarified that he was the one who made the decision to terminate her only after Pao had resigned. A huge amount of unrest could have been deflected off of Pao if Ohanin had said "Hey, I'm the one that made this decision", but that wasn't said (if I'm wrong, please let me know; the first reference I saw to this admission was timestamped around ~1h ago). In fact, reddit's leadership as a whole was extremely wishy-washy and vague about the whole thing, despite the fact that it upset the volunteer base that makes reddit usable enough to incite mini-revolt.
Leaping to claims of sexism seems lazy and just a little-too-convenient for me. I think that if her husband had been in the CEO role and the same things had happened, given his PR image problems, you'd have seen the same magnitude of criticism and outrage (but then, of course, people would level claims of racism as the cause, which I think would have been equally as wrong).
Sure that's possible and it's likely that there are a lot of misogynists that have participated; but that doesn't make everyone who was critical a misogynist.
> It seems like she's been the subject of vitriol primarily for being a woman
More like passing off a lack a simple lack of ability at KPCB as gender discrimination, having the temerity to file a meritless suit on that basis, losing it so conclusively, and then further demonstrating her lack of ability at Reddit thereby harming something a lot of people love a lot.
I find that easy to see how that is vitriol-inducing.
More like passing off a lack a simple lack of ability at KPCB as gender discrimination, having the temerity to file a meritless suit on that basis, losing it so conclusively, and then further demonstrating her lack of ability at Reddit thereby harming something a lot of people love a lot.
I find that easy to see how that is vitriol-inducing.
You forgot the bit where she tried to blackmail KPCB or she would appeal. She also owed them nearly 1m in legal fees which they waived.
That's nonsense. While the expression of disdain for her probably did come forth at times through misogynistic language from some misguided users, it was pretty clear that it was her actions and vision (or lack of a coherent one) that was driving the backlash. Further evidence against the idea that there's a latent misogyny among Reddit's userbase: the firing of a popular female employee is what set all this off (this time at least).
That's hardly the only thing that predates the last few days:
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch...
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch...
Uhm, how? Although there were lots of trolls just looking to rile people up, a lot of the criticisms about her allegedly snubbing other females for promotions and baseless lawsuits that amounted to the same exact figure her fraud of a husband was being hounded for were perfectly valid. Or are all those forgiven because she has a vagina?
The problem with insults in America is that people confuse sexism for insults that are gender-specific. Unlike anal sex, many insults do not work on any gender.
Many of the insults we men use on each other just don't work on a woman. For example, what would calling a woman a "dickless wonder" even mean?
Similarly, let's say I wanted to insult a guy raised by a gay male couple. It would make no sense telling him "Your mother is a whore".
Many of the insults we men use on each other just don't work on a woman. For example, what would calling a woman a "dickless wonder" even mean?
Similarly, let's say I wanted to insult a guy raised by a gay male couple. It would make no sense telling him "Your mother is a whore".
> PR that comes out of corporations cannot be trusted
What does this have to do with the parent's post?
What does this have to do with the parent's post?
Parents post was the highest place to hang a reply.
The parent comment is a reply, so that's not really true.
[deleted]
> We can't trust that her and her husband were in love.
What the fuck is this? And how is this relevant? And when was the last time you heard a similar comment about a man?
What the fuck is this? And how is this relevant? And when was the last time you heard a similar comment about a man?
She had a affair with a married senior partner who was also a lecherous jerk at her prior job, betraying both her spouse and her fellow cheaters spouse. Then when he, the lecher, was under fire for his treatment of another female subordinate she defended him.
I know the story. What I want to know is how this is relevant to her tenure as CEO. Which you've failed to specify.
You asked, verbatim, "What the fuck is this?". Parent answered. But somehow, parent is to blame for not answering the rest of your very rhetorical-looking post.
Troll harder.
This wasn't a troll. You asked, got an answer, and you weren't happy with it. And you call people trolls for calling you out on it. This isn't 4chan.
Whatever else, she didn't "betray her spouse" because they weren't married at the time. http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch...
[deleted]
This is part of the scandal around her. It's not out of left field.
> Will we hear Sam saying "We made a terrible decision putting her in charge."? Never. Even if it was the actual truth.
She was previously fired from Kleiner Perkins for unsatisfactory performance.
Perhaps the Reddit board has come to the conclusion she might not be ready for a CEx position.
She was previously fired from Kleiner Perkins for unsatisfactory performance.
Perhaps the Reddit board has come to the conclusion she might not be ready for a CEx position.
No one said give her a pass, it was simply said the 'vitriol was appalling.' That simply means that the denizens of the internet when taken as a collective are horrible people who can not voice criticism in a civil manner.
Assuming she was completely horrible and a terrible CEO... Assuming that! How could someone's lack of ability to do their job (or anything else for that matter) make the type of death and rape threats that this 'vitriol' was seen being expressed with less appalling?
You are falling into a common pit where you may think it was good she has been replaced, and you may be right, and gosh darn it you are certainly entitled to that opinion. But when you reply objecting to a comment that is basically just saying the type of hate a woman got on the internet was horrible, you become part of the problem by basically saying she deserved to receive those threats.
Assuming she was completely horrible and a terrible CEO... Assuming that! How could someone's lack of ability to do their job (or anything else for that matter) make the type of death and rape threats that this 'vitriol' was seen being expressed with less appalling?
You are falling into a common pit where you may think it was good she has been replaced, and you may be right, and gosh darn it you are certainly entitled to that opinion. But when you reply objecting to a comment that is basically just saying the type of hate a woman got on the internet was horrible, you become part of the problem by basically saying she deserved to receive those threats.
> But when you reply objecting to a comment that is basically just saying the type of hate a woman got on the internet was horrible
So now she got all those threats because she's a woman? What?
You know the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory[1] right? It applies to male and females alike.
And it's pretty scummy how your comment implicates GP said she "deserved to receive those threats", when all he/she did was to point out Pao did an atrocious job and was an awful choice for CEO, and you'll never hear the board admit that.
[1] http://www.penny-arcade.com/S=0/comic/2004/03/19
So now she got all those threats because she's a woman? What?
You know the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory[1] right? It applies to male and females alike.
And it's pretty scummy how your comment implicates GP said she "deserved to receive those threats", when all he/she did was to point out Pao did an atrocious job and was an awful choice for CEO, and you'll never hear the board admit that.
[1] http://www.penny-arcade.com/S=0/comic/2004/03/19
Yishan was actually an incapable CEO and a bad choice. And all the complaints about Ellen apply to him too: he censored subreddits with no clear policy, he was at odds with his own staff and his own board, and he presided over lots of unhappy departures of valuable employees for stupid reasons. A lot of the problems we see now are his doing.
Did he get the same sort of personal, visceral threats?
Did he get the same sort of personal, visceral threats?
Yishan was a massively unpopular CEO and both him and his decisions were strongly disliked. I'm sure he received his fair share of death threats, because internet, but there were also two points to keep in mind for his time as CEO:
- He wasn't in the middle of a bunch of massively controversial fraud/discrimination lawsuits and other issues
- Reddit's administration wasn't a damn soap opera at the time, so people didn't care as much.
PS: You don't need to be a woman to receive death threats. It's not an exclusivity. People are assholes, like I said. I've worked long enough in the video game industry to know this as a fact. Unfortunately, America has this very weird narrative about women which only serves to reinforce the stereotypes they claim to fight. And since it's past 1AM in Europe, we're seeing this narrative dominate the comments... it's pretty sad.
- He wasn't in the middle of a bunch of massively controversial fraud/discrimination lawsuits and other issues
- Reddit's administration wasn't a damn soap opera at the time, so people didn't care as much.
PS: You don't need to be a woman to receive death threats. It's not an exclusivity. People are assholes, like I said. I've worked long enough in the video game industry to know this as a fact. Unfortunately, America has this very weird narrative about women which only serves to reinforce the stereotypes they claim to fight. And since it's past 1AM in Europe, we're seeing this narrative dominate the comments... it's pretty sad.
While we're at it, there were two unpopular firings last month at reddit. The Reddit Gifts guy, who was let go without much fanfare, and chooter (Victoria), who got the entire website to support her, go dark in protest, and fast-forwarded Pao's resignation.
But we don't mention those, no no. It's only "sexism" and "mysoginy" because we don't like what happened to a woman. When it's good for a woman, that's just sheer luck. Or white-knightism, whatever floats your boat.
Please.
But we don't mention those, no no. It's only "sexism" and "mysoginy" because we don't like what happened to a woman. When it's good for a woman, that's just sheer luck. Or white-knightism, whatever floats your boat.
Please.
I agree that, from the public information, it sounds like both of those terminations were potentially ill-advised. (There's also rumors that both of them were loosely tied to Yishan's everyone-in-SF policy, as it happens, but only rumors.) Obviously there's more going on than the public will ever know, unless Reddit corporate email ends up on Wikileaks, so I don't actually have an opinion on them because I don't have anywhere near enough information to make having an opinion worthwhile.
However, unless I misread this thread, the conversation wasn't about whether employee terminations were well-advised. I was talking about which Reddit employees received interminable ugliness from Redditors, and whether it was correlated with what the public knew about their performance in their jobs.
To my knowledge, there was no public discussion, vitriolic or otherwise, of either /u/kickme444 or /u/chooter's performance before their terminations, so I'm not sure what point you are making. (There were some comments that received flak for supporting /u/ekjp's "Removing Harassing Subreddits" post.)
edit: I should also note that I'm not taking any position on the merit of /u/ekjp's departure, as mediated by the Board. Probably it was the right thing to do for the site, and quite likely it was the right thing to do for her, as well, but again, I'm not privy to anything that would let me have a well-informed opinion. I am only taking a position on the vitriol leading up to it. I think we'd both agree that it would be a bad thing if the vitriol was causative -- either if the Board relented to the worst parts of the mob (instead of, say, to respectful argument about why she's the wrong CEO), or if she stepped down because she couldn't take it any more -- and I'm hoping and assuming that it's not the case.
However, unless I misread this thread, the conversation wasn't about whether employee terminations were well-advised. I was talking about which Reddit employees received interminable ugliness from Redditors, and whether it was correlated with what the public knew about their performance in their jobs.
To my knowledge, there was no public discussion, vitriolic or otherwise, of either /u/kickme444 or /u/chooter's performance before their terminations, so I'm not sure what point you are making. (There were some comments that received flak for supporting /u/ekjp's "Removing Harassing Subreddits" post.)
edit: I should also note that I'm not taking any position on the merit of /u/ekjp's departure, as mediated by the Board. Probably it was the right thing to do for the site, and quite likely it was the right thing to do for her, as well, but again, I'm not privy to anything that would let me have a well-informed opinion. I am only taking a position on the vitriol leading up to it. I think we'd both agree that it would be a bad thing if the vitriol was causative -- either if the Board relented to the worst parts of the mob (instead of, say, to respectful argument about why she's the wrong CEO), or if she stepped down because she couldn't take it any more -- and I'm hoping and assuming that it's not the case.
GP's example was that two reddit employees, in two similar situations, got treated differently. They had a different gender, and the woman was treated exponentially worse.
My example was that two reddit employees, in two similar situations, got treated differently. Thad a different gender, and in this case, the woman was treated exponentially better.
So my point was that you can play the "let's find the sexist" game. Or you can just admit that there are other circumstances at play. I'm not saying sexes didn't play a role, I'm saying Pao wasn't hated because she was a woman. Nobody gave two shits about her until she started making unpopular moves.
My example was that two reddit employees, in two similar situations, got treated differently. Thad a different gender, and in this case, the woman was treated exponentially better.
So my point was that you can play the "let's find the sexist" game. Or you can just admit that there are other circumstances at play. I'm not saying sexes didn't play a role, I'm saying Pao wasn't hated because she was a woman. Nobody gave two shits about her until she started making unpopular moves.
Okay, now I understand what you mean, thanks. That did not occur to me at first. I think part of why was that /u/kickme444's departure was not well-publicized until after /u/chooter's, so it seems natural that the response was more muted. But more fundamentally, I'm not looking for sexism for the sake of looking for sexism: I'm looking for plausible causes of why one person was on the receiving end of way more obviously awful behavior than another, and how we can minimize the vitriol that anyone gets. If sexism is a plausible cause, and calling it what it is helps to eliminate it, then let's do that.
Kindness does not cancel out or excuse vitriol. If women get more kindness and also more vitriol online, getting less vitriol to women is still important; I am not concerned about some sum between positive behavior and negative behavior.
Let's say that the Star-Belly Sneetches either get rich beyond their wildest dreams or find themselves starving and begging on the streets. The Plain-Belly Sneetches don't tend to do better than middle class, but they don't do worse, either. To me, there is a single obvious injustice here worth our immediate efforts. If we make sure that Star-Bellied Sneetches have a place to live and food to eat, and if they still get super rich sometimes (i.e., there wasn't an underlying economic problem that advantaged some at the cost of others), then we can look at why that is and why the Plain-Belly Sneetches don't. But worrying about the Plain-Belly Sneetches first is misplaced, and it's clearly not the case that there's some net equality between the two groups because their average wealth is the same.
Kindness does not cancel out or excuse vitriol. If women get more kindness and also more vitriol online, getting less vitriol to women is still important; I am not concerned about some sum between positive behavior and negative behavior.
Let's say that the Star-Belly Sneetches either get rich beyond their wildest dreams or find themselves starving and begging on the streets. The Plain-Belly Sneetches don't tend to do better than middle class, but they don't do worse, either. To me, there is a single obvious injustice here worth our immediate efforts. If we make sure that Star-Bellied Sneetches have a place to live and food to eat, and if they still get super rich sometimes (i.e., there wasn't an underlying economic problem that advantaged some at the cost of others), then we can look at why that is and why the Plain-Belly Sneetches don't. But worrying about the Plain-Belly Sneetches first is misplaced, and it's clearly not the case that there's some net equality between the two groups because their average wealth is the same.
There's something offputting about referring to people by their reddit usernames as if that's an important facet to their personhood. It makes me think, perhaps without justification, that you have your identity far too tied up in a silly website.
I don't know all of their names off the top of my head, and I assume most people reading don't, either, so I went with the Reddit usernames to optimize for clarity and consistency (and Googlability), at the risk of being depersonalizing.
That said, for all four of these people, that "silly website" was not only their job and livelihood, it was also very much a passion of theirs. It's entirely reasonable for it to be a strong part of their identity, and I think it's a bit disrespectful to deny them that.
That said, for all four of these people, that "silly website" was not only their job and livelihood, it was also very much a passion of theirs. It's entirely reasonable for it to be a strong part of their identity, and I think it's a bit disrespectful to deny them that.
This is off-topic, but you might like this little thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/3chaut/why_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/3chaut/why_...
>So now she got all those threats because she's a woman? What?
No one in this chain of comments said that; besides maybe the GP you are defending. I referred to her as a woman and said the type of hate was horrible. There was no causation there.
>You know the ....
No shit, whats your point how does that justify ANYONE getting death and rape threats for doing their job in a manner others consider badly? So what if some of the people threatening her were probably also female? Or was there a different equally horrible point?
>And it's pretty scummy how your comment implicates GP said she "deserved to receive those threats", when all he/she did was to point out Pao did an atrocious job and was an awful choice for CEO, and you'll never hear the board admit that.
I am sorry I didn't mean to implicate that. I meant to flat out say that is what the the GP was effectively doing.
That person decided to reply to a post of which the only content was saying that the internet acted poorly.(basically a truism), and they made a post that disagrees as a response, the only way that post furthers the conversation as a reply is with them supporting the very hate the original poster was talking about.
Look if a person does not want come across as supporting rape and death threats it is best not to disagree with posts which are only pointing out how horrible those type of threats are. It's a pretty basic idea. And if a person does want to support rape and death threats, they should just flat out say so, that way they can be removed as a user on whatever sites want to have actual conversations.
No one in this chain of comments said that; besides maybe the GP you are defending. I referred to her as a woman and said the type of hate was horrible. There was no causation there.
>You know the ....
No shit, whats your point how does that justify ANYONE getting death and rape threats for doing their job in a manner others consider badly? So what if some of the people threatening her were probably also female? Or was there a different equally horrible point?
>And it's pretty scummy how your comment implicates GP said she "deserved to receive those threats", when all he/she did was to point out Pao did an atrocious job and was an awful choice for CEO, and you'll never hear the board admit that.
I am sorry I didn't mean to implicate that. I meant to flat out say that is what the the GP was effectively doing.
That person decided to reply to a post of which the only content was saying that the internet acted poorly.(basically a truism), and they made a post that disagrees as a response, the only way that post furthers the conversation as a reply is with them supporting the very hate the original poster was talking about.
Look if a person does not want come across as supporting rape and death threats it is best not to disagree with posts which are only pointing out how horrible those type of threats are. It's a pretty basic idea. And if a person does want to support rape and death threats, they should just flat out say so, that way they can be removed as a user on whatever sites want to have actual conversations.
> Look if a person does not want come across as supporting rape and death threats it is best not to disagree with posts which are only pointing out how horrible those type of threats are. It's a pretty basic idea. And if a person does want to support rape and death threats, they should just flat out say so, that way they can be removed as a user on whatever sites want to have actual conversations.
This is the same discourse BS that we get from politicians, name-dropping "terrorism" and "paedophilia" to pass random bills, laws or make people swallow unpopular opinions.
It's frankly repulsive seeing it happen here too. "Oh you disagree with me? YOU SUPPORT RAPE."
This is the same discourse BS that we get from politicians, name-dropping "terrorism" and "paedophilia" to pass random bills, laws or make people swallow unpopular opinions.
It's frankly repulsive seeing it happen here too. "Oh you disagree with me? YOU SUPPORT RAPE."
I have a riddle for you. If literally the only content of what someone says is "Rape is Bad" and a person disagrees.... Does the disagreeing person support rape?
Let's get two things out there right now:
1. Nowhere in this thread was someone saying "Rape is Bad", without a bunch of other words around it. Nor was there anyone saying "I disagree", without a bunch of nuances and explanations around it.
2. You're still playing the politician game, trying to reduce the argument down to what suits you best, even after being called out on it.
I'm not falling into this trap. If you want a sensible discussion, please feel free to actually try and elaborate rather than present riddles and try to play tricks.
1. Nowhere in this thread was someone saying "Rape is Bad", without a bunch of other words around it. Nor was there anyone saying "I disagree", without a bunch of nuances and explanations around it.
2. You're still playing the politician game, trying to reduce the argument down to what suits you best, even after being called out on it.
I'm not falling into this trap. If you want a sensible discussion, please feel free to actually try and elaborate rather than present riddles and try to play tricks.
Show me the other CONTENT in this post besides that rape and death threats are appalling.
Patrick_Devine 2 hours ago | parent | flag
As an occasional user of reddit, this whole ordeal has confirmed the reason why I prefer not to hang out in its forums. I have no idea whether Ellen was a capable CEO, but the vitriol which I kept seeing peripherally (through other news articles and here on HN) was absolutely appalling.
Patrick_Devine 2 hours ago | parent | flag
As an occasional user of reddit, this whole ordeal has confirmed the reason why I prefer not to hang out in its forums. I have no idea whether Ellen was a capable CEO, but the vitriol which I kept seeing peripherally (through other news articles and here on HN) was absolutely appalling.
I'm not seeing any mention of rape of death threats in the post you pasted. You're projecting your own assumption that the peripheral vitriol the comment is talking about consisted of only rape and death threats.
Take a step back and try look at it with a clear head. Criticism can take many other forms, you know...
Take a step back and try look at it with a clear head. Criticism can take many other forms, you know...
So by being aware of the actual vitriol that this person publicly received, which very much did include rape and death threats. I am wrong to think when that post mentions the vitriol being appalling, they are referring to the the rape and death threats which were said? Alright my bad, next time I will assume they mean that well mannered posts about the person's inability to manage a company, which also very much existed and probably in greater number, were in fact appalling.
Anonymity doesn't make any "normal person" start spewing death threats and rape threats. The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is just an excuse bad people tell themselves to justify their antisocial behavior.
[deleted]
When I made this post (and for a good time afterward), and I clicked 'parent' of your post it took me to the post with the person talking about the vitriol being appalling.
My response above was written assuming that the intended 'parent' post was the one being linked as the 'parent' at the time.
That post is no longer the parent of your comment, instead the parent is a post which your post actually works as a relatively legitimate reply to.
I am saying this as a way of acknowledging, all my further replies (some of which may have been made after the parent changed, without me noticing) are clearly deserving of down votes in the current context.
My response above was written assuming that the intended 'parent' post was the one being linked as the 'parent' at the time.
That post is no longer the parent of your comment, instead the parent is a post which your post actually works as a relatively legitimate reply to.
I am saying this as a way of acknowledging, all my further replies (some of which may have been made after the parent changed, without me noticing) are clearly deserving of down votes in the current context.
[deleted]
Skepticism in all things is great, but if it doesn't go both ways (like you're presenting here), then it's not skepticism at all but rather a bunch of preconceived notions about what's going on behind the scenes upon which you are projecting all of this bizarre vitriol. It's great that you are so skeptical of what Reddit management is saying, but you should be equally skeptical about all of this stuff that you're imagining is really going on.
> We can't trust that her and her husband were in love.
We detached this subthread and marked it off topic.
We detached this subthread and marked it off topic.
Corporations are like sea of cockroaches on the dark floor. They look vast. Roaches have their little fights and wars, but when they make some random noise and draw outside attention, it's funny to look how individual cockroaches run away from the spotlight.
Don't piss off Kleiner perkins, that's all I can say...
I am opening a bottle of champagne and at the same time answer my own question: it took 3 weeks for the community to get rid off a tyrant. Well done Reddit!
Friendly reminder that if you are using downvotes for disagreement than you are doing it wrong.
Friendly reminder that if you are using downvotes for disagreement than you are doing it wrong.
PG has posted on HN saying that downvoting for disagreement is fine.
I didn't know this for HN, though I'd seen it on Reddit. Thanks for passing this along.
On HN, it isn't as much a problem, from my experience, because the downvote button is masked for users with <~500 karma and I haven't seen many false positives.
On reddit, I was familiar with the saying -- "downvote isn't disagree button." Though, the current rediquette has removed that language. Compare [1] (old) v. [2] (current).
[1] https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette?v=08ebd986-6459-11e2... [2] https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette
On HN, it isn't as much a problem, from my experience, because the downvote button is masked for users with <~500 karma and I haven't seen many false positives.
On reddit, I was familiar with the saying -- "downvote isn't disagree button." Though, the current rediquette has removed that language. Compare [1] (old) v. [2] (current).
[1] https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette?v=08ebd986-6459-11e2... [2] https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette
> On HN, it isn't as much a problem, from my experience, because the downvote button is masked for users with <~500 karma and I haven't seen many false positives.
Unfortunately, it is a serious problem. The moment you become a dissonant voice is the moment you're downvoted into unreadability by the choir. Make no mistake, many people here have enough karma points to downvote and they are quick to react.
Unfortunately, it is a serious problem. The moment you become a dissonant voice is the moment you're downvoted into unreadability by the choir. Make no mistake, many people here have enough karma points to downvote and they are quick to react.
I can't tell if the fact you got downvoted for this was a joke or not. Too many levels of meta?
Any link or should I just believe you? I really like to believe everything I read on the internet btw. :)
I found PG's comment[1] from over 7 years ago. Granted, HN has undergone subtle voting changes since then.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
edit: yeah, the downvote threshold system was bumped up ~1 year after PG's comment.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
edit: yeah, the downvote threshold system was bumped up ~1 year after PG's comment.
[deleted]
I hope reddit has good legal representation...
[deleted]
The real question is will Ellen Pao sue reddit now?
I think most people just let out a sigh of relief.
There's a fine line between being polite and being so boring that it's stifling.
Every commenting site has it's herd mentality and punishment of thought crimes.
Reddit users just wore it on the their sleeves and trying to suppress them was silly.
It might turn into DIGG 2 pretty fast and might not recover.
The investors and the "community" are just too far a part on this.
Reddit users just wore it on the their sleeves and trying to suppress them was silly.
It might turn into DIGG 2 pretty fast and might not recover.
The investors and the "community" are just too far a part on this.
That was quick but the corporate agenda being pushed flew in the face of the Reddit community. Power to the people!
[deleted]
I also applaud Reddit's announcement for calling the community out on their childish BS:
> As a closing note, it was sickening to see some of the things redditors wrote about Ellen. [1] The reduction in compassion that happens when we’re all behind computer screens is not good for the world. People are still people even if there is Internet between you. If the reddit community cannot learn to balance authenticity and compassion, it may be a great website but it will never be a truly great community. Steve’s great challenge as CEO [2] will be continuing the work Ellen started to drive this forward.
All in all, a good day I think.