An update on the recent issues surrounding a Reddit employee(reddit.com)
reddit.com
An update on the recent issues surrounding a Reddit employee
https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/mcisdf/an_update_on_the_recent_issues_surrounding_a/
115 comments
I don’t know much about how Reddit mods and Admins are organised but I have been an active Reddit user for 15 years (which is scary to admit).
What’s clear is these days the popular parts of Reddit are very much “controlled discourse” which largely follow the same narratives as mainstream media. I think the tipping point was Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign, where Reddit showed it could have a significant impact on voting. After that it slowly merged with mainstream media Opinion.
What enabled some of that could well have been the vetting (or lack of) of admins / employees who in turn have some ability to influence who the moderates big subreddits.
What’s clear is these days the popular parts of Reddit are very much “controlled discourse” which largely follow the same narratives as mainstream media. I think the tipping point was Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign, where Reddit showed it could have a significant impact on voting. After that it slowly merged with mainstream media Opinion.
What enabled some of that could well have been the vetting (or lack of) of admins / employees who in turn have some ability to influence who the moderates big subreddits.
Exactly. They went to extensive lengths to set up complex filtering to suppress linking any information about this employee's background. Yet, at the same time, they claim that the employee's background came as a surprise to them. It's bordering on self-contradictory.
> They went to extensive lengths to set up complex filtering to suppress linking any information about this employee's background.
Except they didn't.
They turned on the same bots that they'd use for any internal employee who wasn't any sort of public figure.
So assuming you aren't a public figure, this is the same bot that they'd deploy to prevent you from coming under fire from a doxxing campaign if you were working there.
And whatever your political leanings you should imagine the worst of the opposite extreme edge of the political spectrum deciding to attack you -- possibly for entirely boston-bombing-level of fake manufactured controversy -- using blogs with hastily written posts on them to attack you to try to get around reddit banning mentions of your name.
If you worked there and people decided they hated you and went after you, this is the system you'd want to have deployed to protect you. It wasn't specifically designed for this employee (in fact since it was buggy when used for this employee it was very obviously not specifically designed for this purpose).
If you worked at reddit as a community manager and you were being attacked and doxxed would you not want them to go to these kinds of levels to support you?
Except they didn't.
They turned on the same bots that they'd use for any internal employee who wasn't any sort of public figure.
So assuming you aren't a public figure, this is the same bot that they'd deploy to prevent you from coming under fire from a doxxing campaign if you were working there.
And whatever your political leanings you should imagine the worst of the opposite extreme edge of the political spectrum deciding to attack you -- possibly for entirely boston-bombing-level of fake manufactured controversy -- using blogs with hastily written posts on them to attack you to try to get around reddit banning mentions of your name.
If you worked there and people decided they hated you and went after you, this is the system you'd want to have deployed to protect you. It wasn't specifically designed for this employee (in fact since it was buggy when used for this employee it was very obviously not specifically designed for this purpose).
If you worked at reddit as a community manager and you were being attacked and doxxed would you not want them to go to these kinds of levels to support you?
Having gone through Ellen Pao's tenure as CEO, perhaps Reddit took away the lesson that they need to protect employees from harassment by the community.
I don't know if that's the right lesson, and I don't work for Reddit, but as a manager I'd never expect my employees to put up with death threats from customers.
I don't know if that's the right lesson, and I don't work for Reddit, but as a manager I'd never expect my employees to put up with death threats from customers.
This is an extremely valid point. What happened to Pao was an absolute horrible stain in that community's history. The fact that their board succumbed to the mob was a huge let down. Folks don't realize this but from here on out, reddit will absolutely lock down and protect any public details of their admin team. It is now on its way to become as opaque as Facebook or Twitter's moderation. I hope redditors are content with this outcome.
There's....middle ground, though, y'know? Between "tolerate death threats to employees" and "programmatically ban any user mentioning the name of a particular employee".
Like surely the employee must have mentioned to HR something along the lines of "people are harassing me, it should stop" and HR might go "okay we will look into that" and someone should have looked into it to see what all the controversy was about...like even a little?
Reddit job descriptions promise pseudonymity protection.[1] Seems like harassment is common.
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20210325002519/https://boards.gre...
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20210325002519/https://boards.gre...
One of the worst tings about this is the kind of protective actions they employed. It seems like they made a filter that automatically banned anyone mentioning a certain name, in order to protect that person from harassment. They didn't care about whether the comment was harassing or not, they didn't warn the person making the comment, they simply removed it and banned them. Very heavy handed and sloppy, and I think there's something they're not telling. They knew there would be reactions about this person and thought they could hide them. The person got employed in December and the filter was added in March.
Even worse...the filter was added March 9 and the employee removed today March 24. So they either were grossly incompetent about the issue or they thought this "shadowbanning" was an effective solution!
[deleted]
Am I getting some details wrong here?
Reddit hired a person who condoned and supported the glorification of child rape. Then gave this person private and privileged access to moderate discussions among at risk teenagers.
Has there been an investigation into what discussions they may have had with the children that use this site?
Keep in mind that this is being done while these kids are being presented (on reddit) with hard core gore, porn, etc.
Reddit tried to ban people from pointing this out, and it was only after what appears to be a site wide protest that they have removed them from their privileged access administrative team.
Does it actually get worse than this? This seems like a criminal level of negligence, and then a conspiracy to cover it up. Unreal.
Reddit hired a person who condoned and supported the glorification of child rape. Then gave this person private and privileged access to moderate discussions among at risk teenagers.
Has there been an investigation into what discussions they may have had with the children that use this site?
Keep in mind that this is being done while these kids are being presented (on reddit) with hard core gore, porn, etc.
Reddit tried to ban people from pointing this out, and it was only after what appears to be a site wide protest that they have removed them from their privileged access administrative team.
Does it actually get worse than this? This seems like a criminal level of negligence, and then a conspiracy to cover it up. Unreal.
I believe Reddit's initial reason for banning was an overstep to prevent harassment of said employee. However even a cursory search engine query would have pointed out very bright red flags that should have immediately led to an internal decision.
Of course instead they put in place this ban logic on March 9 and waited till public discourse exploded to take action on March 24...
Of course instead they put in place this ban logic on March 9 and waited till public discourse exploded to take action on March 24...
This is a "fire your head of HR" level of problem and you can be sure this will be brought up to the board (I just looked up the board. it's only 4 people, basically product marketing folks).
This story has once again disappeared from the HN front page. The same happened yesterday to at least three stories about the same incident.
Is there a rule/policy towards removing content about plunders by startups originally funded by Y Combinator?
Preciously rejected discussions:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26557175
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26554697
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26556187
Is there a rule/policy towards removing content about plunders by startups originally funded by Y Combinator?
Preciously rejected discussions:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26557175
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26554697
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26556187
HN heavily penalizes stories where the comment threads have large amounts of conflict and upvote/downvote wars. The automated lowering of the article rank has nothing to do with HN caring about the subject matter of the article and everything to do with HN's software penalizing the combative nature of the discussion about the article. HN does this because it helps maintain the high level of discussion seen elsewhere on the site.
This, and the other stories, have been captured on https://rejected.substack.com/ - a newsletter / repository of stories that were prevented to reach the front page or silently pushed off.
> 'On March 9th, we added extra protections for this employee, including actioning content that mentioned the employee’s name or shared personal information on third-party sites, which we reserve for serious cases of harassment and doxxing.'
So they didn't vet them but knew to protect their identity at all costs?
So they didn't vet them but knew to protect their identity at all costs?
[deleted]
I imagine they reported being harassed or doxxed.
Context for those like me out of the loop: https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/24/22348255/reddit-moderator...
OH WOW!
Last year two of reddits biggest users (and mods) were accused of being Ghislaine Maxwell. The accounts were u/maxwellhill and u/anutensil. It shocked me how quickly those stories sunk, and how some of the stories derided it as conspiracy-minded drivel.
Well, it's been almost a year since, and the accounts still haven't posted since Ghislaine was arrested.
Well, it's been almost a year since, and the accounts still haven't posted since Ghislaine was arrested.
I genuinely don't understand why a wanted criminal, famous socialite and multimillionaire thought (at the time) to be in hiding outside the country and known by nearly everyone would spend her time posting links to Reddit accruing millions of comment karma. It straight up does not make sense, and neither does whatever relationship that has to what just happened. It's a total non-sequitur.
It doesn't help matters that they were fairly well known as power user even before [0]. It's the lowest and least creative form of conspiracy theories - really superficial pattern recognition.
[0]: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/reddit-maxwellhill-moderator-...
It doesn't help matters that they were fairly well known as power user even before [0]. It's the lowest and least creative form of conspiracy theories - really superficial pattern recognition.
[0]: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/reddit-maxwellhill-moderator-...
>I genuinely don't understand why a wanted criminal, famous socialite and multimillionaire thought (at the time) to be in hiding outside the country and known by nearly everyone would spend her time posting links to Reddit accruing millions of comment karma
Did you know that Donald Trump had a Twitter account?
Did you know that Donald Trump had a Twitter account?
That's what they want you to think.
Its interesting that the job description for an admin position at Reddit advertises that the company will and has tools to scrub successful employees personal information from the web at large.
https://boards.greenhouse.io/reddit/jobs/3005811
https://boards.greenhouse.io/reddit/jobs/3005811
It's good that Reddit has admitted fault here, and said person is no longer employed by them.
they did so only once their more popular subs went dark depriving users of content. So its not really them being on the side of good by admitting fault but being forced to admit fault
if anything I will not be surprised if reddit's management does not take steps to prevent moderators from doing that again, taking popular subs private.
if anything I will not be surprised if reddit's management does not take steps to prevent moderators from doing that again, taking popular subs private.
Sad to see a website that once felt kind of indie succumb to obvious corporate-speak and lies like this.
As an early adopter from the Digg exodus, I haven't really enjoyed Reddit in the past 2 years or so.
Hey fellow Digg exile! I completely agree. One thing I mentioned somewhere else: It is quite interesting to see both this and the Stallman FSF issue developing in parallel: In one side (reddit drama) There's uproar trying to "cancel" a person for whatever beliefs/actions they did. On the other side (Stallman/FSF) there's an uproar against cancelling the person for their beliefs/actions. Sure, both are different population, but it kind of shows the diversity of thought and reasoning in both cases.
Personally I try to be neutral with regards to these type of moral judgments. My question is: Did they something illegal in their country? then throw the book at them as strongly as possible. Otherwise... well, my morals are not compatible with US population morals, nor with Iran's population morals, nor with French population morals so I reserve any judgement for myself.
Personally I try to be neutral with regards to these type of moral judgments. My question is: Did they something illegal in their country? then throw the book at them as strongly as possible. Otherwise... well, my morals are not compatible with US population morals, nor with Iran's population morals, nor with French population morals so I reserve any judgement for myself.
I just wonder why nobody thought to Google her name between the 9th March (when "extra protections" were first put in place) and now.
They probably did but didn't want to be the one to say anything at the risk of being accused of transphobia.
That feels like a bold and possibly dangerous thing to say without evidence.
The former Reddit employee in question accused the Green Party in the UK of transphobia, after they discovered she hired her own father as an election consultant, under an alias. At the time, he had been charged with rape and child abuse, and has since been convicted.
This is all public information.
This is all public information.
Doesn't seem like the accusation stuck. And it would be very easy to point out she did it before.
Doesn't seem like the accusation stuck.
Read their first sentence again.
How is it bold and dangerous? A decent chunk of people accused any person who criticized this person as transphobic. This has happened with other LGBT people so there is a history of this happening in the past.
jimbob45(1)
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26557175
Does UK have at-will employment? If she had been an employee in my country it's very unlikely that reddit could legally fire her like this.
Generally speaking, an employee in the UK can be dismissed for no reason at all within the first two years of employment.
At-will employment is pretty much a US-only thing within western countries (barring the testing period). I believe there was another EU country a bit lax, but otherwise most countries require a valid reason to fire someone. I cannot find the source for the life of me, but it was pretty telling.
I haven't seen any reason given for Reddit firing her. I've seen various reasons why people question her judgement - but nothing from Reddit about the "why".
This may be an unpopular opinion but I think we need to re-think the value of pseudo-anonymity on the net. Free speech means so much more when it is attached to your real identity. In real life your identity is attached to your speech in almost all cases. Why not online too?
Advantages:
-less trolling and extremism in general, people would be less likely to say outlandish things if their comments or submissions were attached to the real identity and reputation.
-less vile content. People would be less likely to post gray area porn on forums like reddit if they had to use their real identity.
-transparency in moderation. If Ghislaine Maxwell is moderating /r/worldnews/ users have a right to know. In general users have a right to know who is moderating popular forums.
Disadvantages:
-perhaps more people would be subject to in real life harassment but this is doubtful if the harassers are also obligated to use their in real life identities on line. Where harassment becomes illegal it is no longer a "moderation" problem. If you write a letter to your local newspaper and it is published under your real name, as they always are, if somebody threatens to attack you over it, that is a legal matter, not a matter for the paper. It should be the same on line...
-perhaps fewer people would be willing to discuss unpopular opinions online if they feared retaliation from a "cancel culture" mob.
The key problems with reddit as a general forum of forums for online discussion, I believe, are:
pseudo-anonymity and lack of transparency in users, mods and admins encourages abuse.
lack of democratic selection or accountability for mods and admins encourages mods who are at odds with a community's general members. If we believe in democracy off-line why not online too.
upvote downvote turns everything into a lowest common denominator popularity contest.
I could go on...but I don't get paid for this...like most of reddits mods and users don't get paid.
There is value to be extracted in user generated text content but reddit is doing it wrong...the site is become more and more extreme of an echo chamber and alienating more and more of its potential user base. Mods are expected to work for "free" so this encourages special interests and disordered people to become mods...
It seems to me reddit is a dumb idea...run by dumb people. I don't get how it became so big with so little competition. What is the barrier to entry to set up a forum?
Advantages:
-less trolling and extremism in general, people would be less likely to say outlandish things if their comments or submissions were attached to the real identity and reputation.
-less vile content. People would be less likely to post gray area porn on forums like reddit if they had to use their real identity.
-transparency in moderation. If Ghislaine Maxwell is moderating /r/worldnews/ users have a right to know. In general users have a right to know who is moderating popular forums.
Disadvantages:
-perhaps more people would be subject to in real life harassment but this is doubtful if the harassers are also obligated to use their in real life identities on line. Where harassment becomes illegal it is no longer a "moderation" problem. If you write a letter to your local newspaper and it is published under your real name, as they always are, if somebody threatens to attack you over it, that is a legal matter, not a matter for the paper. It should be the same on line...
-perhaps fewer people would be willing to discuss unpopular opinions online if they feared retaliation from a "cancel culture" mob.
The key problems with reddit as a general forum of forums for online discussion, I believe, are:
pseudo-anonymity and lack of transparency in users, mods and admins encourages abuse.
lack of democratic selection or accountability for mods and admins encourages mods who are at odds with a community's general members. If we believe in democracy off-line why not online too.
upvote downvote turns everything into a lowest common denominator popularity contest.
I could go on...but I don't get paid for this...like most of reddits mods and users don't get paid.
There is value to be extracted in user generated text content but reddit is doing it wrong...the site is become more and more extreme of an echo chamber and alienating more and more of its potential user base. Mods are expected to work for "free" so this encourages special interests and disordered people to become mods...
It seems to me reddit is a dumb idea...run by dumb people. I don't get how it became so big with so little competition. What is the barrier to entry to set up a forum?
Facebook tried this, and it did not go well for many good reasons.
But also, inasmuch as people are tied to their real identities on Facebook, your first listed advantage doesn't seem to hold up. On many websites, I see people using their real names for trolling and extremism, saying outlandish things pretty frequently. Any political post on fivethirtyeight.com should serve as but one example.
Not everybody values their online reputation as much as you might. Many people think nothing of using their real name to heap scorn on and revile people they consider "others," like those of a given political party or ethnicity or religion. I know PennyArcade once hypothesized that anonymity was key to greater internet nastiness, but it doesn't seem like anonymity is actually that essential.
On the other hand, many people rely on pseudo-anonymity to avoid harassment, to shield themselves from stalkers such as ex-partners, and so on. Many people lack the sort of legal documentation such a policy would seem to require. Trying to enforce anything like "RealID" results in excluding many voices from the conversation, while not actually doing much to reduce the toxicity.
But also, inasmuch as people are tied to their real identities on Facebook, your first listed advantage doesn't seem to hold up. On many websites, I see people using their real names for trolling and extremism, saying outlandish things pretty frequently. Any political post on fivethirtyeight.com should serve as but one example.
Not everybody values their online reputation as much as you might. Many people think nothing of using their real name to heap scorn on and revile people they consider "others," like those of a given political party or ethnicity or religion. I know PennyArcade once hypothesized that anonymity was key to greater internet nastiness, but it doesn't seem like anonymity is actually that essential.
On the other hand, many people rely on pseudo-anonymity to avoid harassment, to shield themselves from stalkers such as ex-partners, and so on. Many people lack the sort of legal documentation such a policy would seem to require. Trying to enforce anything like "RealID" results in excluding many voices from the conversation, while not actually doing much to reduce the toxicity.
[deleted]
Is this cancel culture?
I would say cancel culture is usually applied when group A doesn't like the politics of group (or individual) B, and has them de-platformed. In this case politics weren't involved, and the people performing the de-platform were from all ends of the spectrum.
Soooooo, free market capitalism?
No, and I think you know why, but I'll bite.
This is a consequence for past actions. If you are involved in the kind of things this employee was involved with then you deserve no right to being employed by a private company and certainly no right to have others ignore that in their interactions or discussion of you.
This is a consequence for past actions. If you are involved in the kind of things this employee was involved with then you deserve no right to being employed by a private company and certainly no right to have others ignore that in their interactions or discussion of you.
>and I think you know why
No, I am not being tongue-in-cheek in an attempt to catch somebody out on hypocrisy (though I do believe many people are extremely hypocritical on this topic). Apologies - let me be more clear: I am not implicitly asking, "is this a case of cancel culture producing a good outcome", nor, "is this a case of cancel culture producing a bad outcome". I am not using the term "cancel culture" as a synonym for "unjust social punishment". I am asking: Is this an example of cancel culture, and, if not, what is the distinction? (And don't worry, I'm not stubbornly requiring an objective distinction in the shape of a formal argument, since this is a very subjective topic.)
I appreciate your opinion, but you're expressing it very generically - you're just saying she deserved her consequences, which is fine, and I agree, but are you saying you believe that whether or not the consequences are "deserved" or "just" is the primary/only distinction between cancel culture and "normal" social consequences?
Edit: As others have pointed out, I picked this topic not just because it's a case of social consequences, but also because it has other, more specific hallmarks of what is typically labeled "cancel culture". That is: The crime leaned more toward morality and social damage vs concrete actions; guilt by association; and a sexual topic.
No, I am not being tongue-in-cheek in an attempt to catch somebody out on hypocrisy (though I do believe many people are extremely hypocritical on this topic). Apologies - let me be more clear: I am not implicitly asking, "is this a case of cancel culture producing a good outcome", nor, "is this a case of cancel culture producing a bad outcome". I am not using the term "cancel culture" as a synonym for "unjust social punishment". I am asking: Is this an example of cancel culture, and, if not, what is the distinction? (And don't worry, I'm not stubbornly requiring an objective distinction in the shape of a formal argument, since this is a very subjective topic.)
I appreciate your opinion, but you're expressing it very generically - you're just saying she deserved her consequences, which is fine, and I agree, but are you saying you believe that whether or not the consequences are "deserved" or "just" is the primary/only distinction between cancel culture and "normal" social consequences?
Edit: As others have pointed out, I picked this topic not just because it's a case of social consequences, but also because it has other, more specific hallmarks of what is typically labeled "cancel culture". That is: The crime leaned more toward morality and social damage vs concrete actions; guilt by association; and a sexual topic.
I think we'd need a shared definition of "cancel culture" to be able to determine if this is or isn't an example of it. I'm not sure we have that since cancel culture is something of a contentious term.
I think it's definitely an example of cancelling, but for me, as a pejorative, cancel culture is when cancelling isn't justified. I just learned of this person's existence today, so I'm not really informed, but I think the argument that "someone who has seemed permissive of pedophilia and child-rape on multiple occasions should not be in charge of administrating a forum that is used by young people" is pretty compelling. Because I think cancelling is justified, I don't think it's cancel culture. Of course, one implication of this definition is that people who support someone's cancellation will never think they're engaging in cancel culture.
The best case would be for reddit (and others) to have actual convictions and be able to articulate them. If there's some reason why this person shouldn't be fired reddit could make that case and stand by their employee. If there is no such reason reddit shouldn't have hired this person in the first place.
I think it's definitely an example of cancelling, but for me, as a pejorative, cancel culture is when cancelling isn't justified. I just learned of this person's existence today, so I'm not really informed, but I think the argument that "someone who has seemed permissive of pedophilia and child-rape on multiple occasions should not be in charge of administrating a forum that is used by young people" is pretty compelling. Because I think cancelling is justified, I don't think it's cancel culture. Of course, one implication of this definition is that people who support someone's cancellation will never think they're engaging in cancel culture.
The best case would be for reddit (and others) to have actual convictions and be able to articulate them. If there's some reason why this person shouldn't be fired reddit could make that case and stand by their employee. If there is no such reason reddit shouldn't have hired this person in the first place.
There is a galaxy of difference between offensive speech and child rape.
Absolutely. But she isn't accused of child rape, she is accused of exercising terrible judgement which is also very bad PR for Reddit involving employing a subsequently convicted child rapist who happened to be her father, apparently in the belief he was not dangerous and also standing by her partner after his very offensive erotica was revealed.
(of course it's possible to argue that this raises very serious concerns about her ability to identify and deal with dangerous behaviour and possibly even sympathies for it, but the same goes for certain kinds of offensive speech)
Someone else on this thread pit it well:
This person has a demonstrative history that supports sex crimes against children (see: supporting her father, supporting her partner). This person is/was in a position to influence what was seen by children (a mod for /teen) on a website that links to gore and porn.
If this person was a software engineer - I wouldn't care.
If this person was my babysitter- I would care.
This person moderates content on r/teen - I care.
This person has a demonstrative history that supports sex crimes against children (see: supporting her father, supporting her partner). This person is/was in a position to influence what was seen by children (a mod for /teen) on a website that links to gore and porn.
If this person was a software engineer - I wouldn't care.
If this person was my babysitter- I would care.
This person moderates content on r/teen - I care.
Yes, but that's not really the relevant thing.
People get "cancelled" when a large enough group of people think someone has done something wrong.
It just happens to be the case here that the group is very large, but it's fundamentally no different to other cases where people have been "cancelled".
People get "cancelled" when a large enough group of people think someone has done something wrong.
It just happens to be the case here that the group is very large, but it's fundamentally no different to other cases where people have been "cancelled".
Most people I've talked to who are concerned about "cancel culture" are concerned about the dynamic where even a small group of people can get someone fired by being very loud about it. (I do agree with your implicit statement that it's not a very helpful term to use, though - at this point it's been too thoroughly repurposed for weird political battles.)
> This is a consequence for past actions
This is exactly how people justify cancel culture and/or cancelling others.
Before anyone downvotes as they did to OP, I am in no way shape or form defending the person of interest. But unfortunately, this is what cancel culture is; there's no reason to redefine it.
This is exactly how people justify cancel culture and/or cancelling others.
Before anyone downvotes as they did to OP, I am in no way shape or form defending the person of interest. But unfortunately, this is what cancel culture is; there's no reason to redefine it.
> This is a consequence for past actions. If you are involved in the kind of things this employee was involved with then you deserve no right to being employed by a private company and certainly no right to have others ignore that in their interactions or discussion of you.
Can't you say that about anything and anyone though?
Every instance of someone being "cancelled" is really just the "consequence" of their past actions.
Can't you say that about anything and anyone though?
Every instance of someone being "cancelled" is really just the "consequence" of their past actions.
I think I agree with that. "cancel culture" is just the catchy phrase being used today to imply that the past actions weren't so bad and weren't deserving of the subsequent response.
In this case...I don't think someone who has definitive links to pedophilia and already been kicked out of two organizations for those links probably shouldn't be employed in a position at Reddit where they are working with youth.
Should she never get a job again ever? No! But probably not one with children or youth...
In this case...I don't think someone who has definitive links to pedophilia and already been kicked out of two organizations for those links probably shouldn't be employed in a position at Reddit where they are working with youth.
Should she never get a job again ever? No! But probably not one with children or youth...
I'm very curious who/why at Reddit decided she was a good hire for that position. And the husband too.
I think that's a much more interesting question than another to and fro about cancel culture.
I think that's a much more interesting question than another to and fro about cancel culture.
The past action in question was that the former Green Party politician in question apparently continued to associate voluntarily with her own father, appointing him her election agent, even though he had been accused (apparently correctly) of torturing and raping children. Is that really the kind of "past action" that should be punished by permanent unemployment?
This sounds like the Cultural Revolution.
This sounds like the Cultural Revolution.
It’s worth noting too - she had only newly turned 18 when she appointed her father as her campaign manager, he hadn’t been convicted, and she was a minor when he was charged.
Not defending her other actions re. her husband, but the thing with her father isn’t so bad given her age, given he was still legally innocent (note: he was later convicted), and given how common it is for children to maintain relationships with terrible parents in prison.
I’m not going to pick a side overall, really, but I think a lot of people assume she was an adult during all of this.
Not defending her other actions re. her husband, but the thing with her father isn’t so bad given her age, given he was still legally innocent (note: he was later convicted), and given how common it is for children to maintain relationships with terrible parents in prison.
I’m not going to pick a side overall, really, but I think a lot of people assume she was an adult during all of this.
Not advocating for permanent unemployment but just not one at Reddit in a role where she is working with youth/teens
> This is a consequence for past actions.
Ok, so to be clear, it's "a consequence for past actions" when you know what's going on and agree, but "cancel culture" when you are out of the loop or when you disagree.
Ok, so to be clear, it's "a consequence for past actions" when you know what's going on and agree, but "cancel culture" when you are out of the loop or when you disagree.
> This is a consequence for past actions.
That's what cancel culture is... Retribution for past actions, not justice for current ones.
That's what cancel culture is... Retribution for past actions, not justice for current ones.
"cancel culture" is just the flashy new way for people to try to downplay the offensive past actions and find a way to criticize the reaction as going too far.
I think removing this person from employment in a role that involves youth/children given their past actions and associations seems like a reasonable reaction, NOT "cancel culture"
I think removing this person from employment in a role that involves youth/children given their past actions and associations seems like a reasonable reaction, NOT "cancel culture"
Well, guilt by association is certainly a trait of cancel culture and, unless I missed it, association is the source of all pedophilic activity in this story rather than anything the subject (Mrs. Challenor) did themself.
Yet if you look at Reddit's homepage, you'd think she was the one charged with child rape.
Yet if you look at Reddit's homepage, you'd think she was the one charged with child rape.
Guilt by association is probably fair game here...in her capacity at reddit she was working on subreddits that involved younger adults/teenagers. Do you think that would be okay?
If she was a software engineer or working on marketing, I would not advocate for her to be removed from reddit.
Much of the controversy is that this was an admin with control over subreddits which there is clear public information that perhaps they aren't best suited for.
If she was a software engineer or working on marketing, I would not advocate for her to be removed from reddit.
Much of the controversy is that this was an admin with control over subreddits which there is clear public information that perhaps they aren't best suited for.
Well, once again, you're treating her as if she was the one convicted of pedophilia.
Do I think someone associated with a pedophile should be treated like a pedophile? No.
Our justice system and legal ethics certainly don't believe in a transitivity of guilt like that. We'd consider that extremely unfair. In my eyes, a large component of cancel culture is when we ignore all that because we like the result.
Do I think someone associated with a pedophile should be treated like a pedophile? No.
Our justice system and legal ethics certainly don't believe in a transitivity of guilt like that. We'd consider that extremely unfair. In my eyes, a large component of cancel culture is when we ignore all that because we like the result.
It was her father...who she chose to employ as her campaign manager AFTER it was already known about his crimes.
It wasn't just someone in her extended friend circle or a passing acquaintance.
I think she shouldn't be treated as a pedophile. I think she should be treated warily in positions that involve youth. That feels like a pretty reasonable concern.
It wasn't just someone in her extended friend circle or a passing acquaintance.
I think she shouldn't be treated as a pedophile. I think she should be treated warily in positions that involve youth. That feels like a pretty reasonable concern.
> I think she shouldn't be treated as a pedophile. I think she should be treated warily in positions that involve youth.
These statements don't square. Barring them from employment isn't just wariness.
Hiring her pedo dad is definitely a bad choice for a political campaign and it looks bad. That's different than: can't be trusted alone in a room with a child or can't be trusted to run a forum.
These statements don't square. Barring them from employment isn't just wariness.
Hiring her pedo dad is definitely a bad choice for a political campaign and it looks bad. That's different than: can't be trusted alone in a room with a child or can't be trusted to run a forum.
Would you trust this person to watch your children?
Who is moderating your child's Instagram posts? As someone who knows some Facebook Moderation TPM's, you might not like the answer.
Maybe you should report this behavior to the right folks.
If this comes up as public information and we know that Facebook was aware of it, yes I’d rightfully be angry. Making a bad argument here I think.
If this comes up as public information and we know that Facebook was aware of it, yes I’d rightfully be angry. Making a bad argument here I think.
Not making any sort of argument, just addressing some facts. It's in response to "Would you trust this person to watch your children?"
That is why it's not public information. See how it only matters when it's public? Product managers certainly aren't responsible for the actions of others, either. Social media moderation is not a task many are willing to take, certainly one that some badly behaved individuals might be interested in.
That is why it's not public information. See how it only matters when it's public? Product managers certainly aren't responsible for the actions of others, either. Social media moderation is not a task many are willing to take, certainly one that some badly behaved individuals might be interested in.
I think the outrage might be coming from many people hoping that Reddit holds its self to a higher bar. The other mods might like Reddit to be a site where they let their kids surf freely.
Who actually believes reddit is a promising site for children? Unlike Facebook/Instagram, reddit is already 50% pornography with very low barriers of harassment and cyberbullying (due to pure anonymity).
Do you think someone associated with pedophilia should be in a position of power moderating comments by and about youth?
Well, be more specific. "Associated with pedophilia" ranges all the way to a child rape conviction.
Do I think someone who once hired a pedophile should be treated like one? No. Does the law or legal ethics think so? No.
Do I think someone who once hired a pedophile should be treated like one? No. Does the law or legal ethics think so? No.
It's not just a question of guilt by association - she got kicked out of the Green Party for, basically, employing someone out on bail on child rape (and torture, and...) charges in a role where he absolutely should not have been employed because he could potentially have used it to prey on vulnerable people and possibly giving him a false name to conceal this from them. This directly calls into question whether she can be trusted with a role that gives her power over communication channels used by young people.
Hiring a pedophile and presumably, inadvertently supplying them access to sensitive communications is still a different transgression than doing it yourself.
I prefer a society where we make this distinction and give people the benefit of the doubt just like our legal ethics do.
I prefer a society where we make this distinction and give people the benefit of the doubt just like our legal ethics do.
Hiring a pedophile rapist, then marrying another outspoken pedophile, then getting a job as a supermod for r/teen however...
I’ll bite too. Do you not deserve or not have said rights? Both qualifications have cultural underpinnings but each reflect different stages of a rights statement lifecycle.
Yes, absolutely, and i think that anyone supporting this should take a long and hard look at themselves and ask how someone is supposed to live in society and support themselves when a worldwide mob is actively lobbying to have them unable to acquire/retain gainful employment.
Make no mistake, i have no views on this person, and had never heard of them until this thing showed up. I also vehemently disapprove of the way reddit handled it (censorship? No!) And will always be up to giving reddit a bloody nose over the crap they do.
But make no mistake this is cancel culture, and this has wide reaching implications.
Make no mistake, i have no views on this person, and had never heard of them until this thing showed up. I also vehemently disapprove of the way reddit handled it (censorship? No!) And will always be up to giving reddit a bloody nose over the crap they do.
But make no mistake this is cancel culture, and this has wide reaching implications.
I don't think that "A person who has strong ties to paedophiles, defends paedophilia, and for who there exists a reasonable suspicion of being a paedophile themselves, should not be in a position or authority over a website where they have incredible reach to youth and teens" counts as cancel culture.
Especially not when Reddit admins can likely see private correspondence between users and can definitely see personally identifying information about them.
Especially not when Reddit admins can likely see private correspondence between users and can definitely see personally identifying information about them.
I think one of the points that the post you replied to is trying to make is that it is important to recognize this as an instance of cancel culture, whether it is appropriate in this case or not.
Cancel culture is a powerful weapon. Like all weapons, it does not care where it is pointed. It can be used both for good or for ill. We ignore that characteristic at our peril.
(Obligatory disclaimer: I have no opinion on the person at the center of this and do not particularly care to form an informed opinion. I am more interested in this on the societal-level than the this-incident level.)
Cancel culture is a powerful weapon. Like all weapons, it does not care where it is pointed. It can be used both for good or for ill. We ignore that characteristic at our peril.
(Obligatory disclaimer: I have no opinion on the person at the center of this and do not particularly care to form an informed opinion. I am more interested in this on the societal-level than the this-incident level.)
You could just lump this under the umbrella of cancel culture and it would be reasonable.
I think the difference is that in my mind cancel culture is "we need to remove this person because they did/said/think something I don't like" whereas this is "we need to remove this person because they might pose a very real danger in this position based on their past behavior"
Cancel culture is indiscriminate. It punishes people for having the wrong ideas or saying the wrong things regardless of whether or not people are in any situation to cause harm with those things. People get fired from jobs as a waiter at Denny's because of cancel culture. It is a punitive measure meant to punish the transgression.
As a society we already have an understanding that some positions are important, they contain authority that makes them open for abuse. Things like elected office, teaching, anything where you have authority over more vulnerable populations. We also have an understanding that there are things that disqualify you from those sorts of positions.
We also understand that sometimes people who should have been disqualified end up in those positions. When their disqualifiers are brought to light, we tend to agree it is reasonable to remove them from those positions, essentially disqualifying them retroactively. This approach is preventative not punitive and I think it's distinct from cancel culture in that regard.
I would argue that this is a case of the latter. She should never have been hired.
On the surface it looks like cancel culture because the outrage mob looks the same. Maybe some people are just motivated to cancel her. I think that's misguided, but calling for her removal is justified in this case not to punish past transgressions but to prevent future possible abuse.
I think the difference is that in my mind cancel culture is "we need to remove this person because they did/said/think something I don't like" whereas this is "we need to remove this person because they might pose a very real danger in this position based on their past behavior"
Cancel culture is indiscriminate. It punishes people for having the wrong ideas or saying the wrong things regardless of whether or not people are in any situation to cause harm with those things. People get fired from jobs as a waiter at Denny's because of cancel culture. It is a punitive measure meant to punish the transgression.
As a society we already have an understanding that some positions are important, they contain authority that makes them open for abuse. Things like elected office, teaching, anything where you have authority over more vulnerable populations. We also have an understanding that there are things that disqualify you from those sorts of positions.
We also understand that sometimes people who should have been disqualified end up in those positions. When their disqualifiers are brought to light, we tend to agree it is reasonable to remove them from those positions, essentially disqualifying them retroactively. This approach is preventative not punitive and I think it's distinct from cancel culture in that regard.
I would argue that this is a case of the latter. She should never have been hired.
On the surface it looks like cancel culture because the outrage mob looks the same. Maybe some people are just motivated to cancel her. I think that's misguided, but calling for her removal is justified in this case not to punish past transgressions but to prevent future possible abuse.
When or where did she "defend paedophilia?"
As best I can tell, the paedophile she "has strong ties to" is her father. No?
As best I can tell, the paedophile she "has strong ties to" is her father. No?
Her father is a convicted child rapist and her husband is a self confessed paedophile.
They can work with something else than being an admin on one of the largest social media sites in the world, or a politician influencing public policy, or really anything with power over others. There's plenty of other options available.
jimbob45(1)
I think that's actually a question worth examining. I'm a little uncomfortable that the protests got him fired.
The initial problem wasn't that the employee was hired, it was Reddit's heavy-handed filtering, censoring, and autobanning. Firing the employee doesn't fix the actual issue.
Between Reddit and the employee, there's stuff we don't know and won't ever know. Did he hide info during the hiring process, and so on. Maybe the firing was justified, maybe it wasn't. He was never charged or convicted of a crime, and the idea of continuously punishing him just because of suspicions or associating isn't right. On the other hand, I think it would have been sensible to Reddit to have avoided hiring him in the first place.
We might have to see whether the opprobrium spreads to future employment, social media accounts, and so on. That would definitely be cancellation, and wrong.
The initial problem wasn't that the employee was hired, it was Reddit's heavy-handed filtering, censoring, and autobanning. Firing the employee doesn't fix the actual issue.
Between Reddit and the employee, there's stuff we don't know and won't ever know. Did he hide info during the hiring process, and so on. Maybe the firing was justified, maybe it wasn't. He was never charged or convicted of a crime, and the idea of continuously punishing him just because of suspicions or associating isn't right. On the other hand, I think it would have been sensible to Reddit to have avoided hiring him in the first place.
We might have to see whether the opprobrium spreads to future employment, social media accounts, and so on. That would definitely be cancellation, and wrong.
You seemed to go out of your way to use misgendered pronouns in your comment, which isn't cool. You don't have to like a person to refer to her the way everybody sees her. At the very least it avoids confusion.
You're right that the parent comment used the incorrect pronoun. However, how are you to know this was not a mistake and why do you think OP "went out of their way"?
Also, isn't "everybody" incorrect given OPs statement?
Also, isn't "everybody" incorrect given OPs statement?
At the time of my comment, theirs was the only comment with the wrong pronouns, and at least five times. This in response to a story that consistently uses a feminine name and feminine pronouns, which are also consistently used in all the other reporting I've seen on the subject at hand. The only places I've seen masculine pronouns used before today have been from commenters expressing negative views of transgender people.
Based on that, I think it was fair to say that they seemingly went out of their way to use the wrong pronouns. I did not, however, accuse them of being anti-transgender on that basis alone.
Clearly the voting disagrees with my observation, or simply agrees with mis-gendering Ms. Knight.
Based on that, I think it was fair to say that they seemingly went out of their way to use the wrong pronouns. I did not, however, accuse them of being anti-transgender on that basis alone.
Clearly the voting disagrees with my observation, or simply agrees with mis-gendering Ms. Knight.
As I said above, the quantity of misuse of pronouns isn't really relevant as if you use one (her/him) you would use the same for consistency. So it you misunderstood and say use Him then of course you'll want to use elsewhere.
Having said that, I agree with you that OP may have intended to be mean. I've no idea though - perhaps it's better to be kinder and assume innocency than attacking OP? Or perhaps asking OP to clarify?
I'm not sure the down-voting implies an agreement with mis-gendering. To write that says a lot and I don't think many on hackerrews would agree.
Either way, would be easier to use the person's name in place of pronouns.
Having said that, I agree with you that OP may have intended to be mean. I've no idea though - perhaps it's better to be kinder and assume innocency than attacking OP? Or perhaps asking OP to clarify?
I'm not sure the down-voting implies an agreement with mis-gendering. To write that says a lot and I don't think many on hackerrews would agree.
Either way, would be easier to use the person's name in place of pronouns.
I would like to say no, because the admin in question very likely lied about her background, and you'd think that would be enough to get someone fired once it leaks out. In any event, her background would seem to make her unfit for a job as Reddit admin.
The fact that Reddit had to have known about her background no later than 3/9, when special protections were put in place, complicates this.
It's possible that they were just taking time to get their (legal) ducks in a row before firing her. I've seen that happen, where a coworker who was creeping on younger female coworkers had his desk moved, and was only let go a month later.
Or maybe Reddit thought it was a great idea to have her as an employee given her background, and only fired her when it became a big deal. In that case it would be a cancellation.
The fact that Reddit had to have known about her background no later than 3/9, when special protections were put in place, complicates this.
It's possible that they were just taking time to get their (legal) ducks in a row before firing her. I've seen that happen, where a coworker who was creeping on younger female coworkers had his desk moved, and was only let go a month later.
Or maybe Reddit thought it was a great idea to have her as an employee given her background, and only fired her when it became a big deal. In that case it would be a cancellation.
Why is it very likely she lied?
It sounds like they put the same protections in place for other people. Reddit job descriptions promise pseudonymity protection too.[1]
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20210325002519/https://boards.gre...
It sounds like they put the same protections in place for other people. Reddit job descriptions promise pseudonymity protection too.[1]
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20210325002519/https://boards.gre...
I say that because you would think a community site would have some sort of filtering process for predators and their enablers, and the Reddit statement says their vetting failed. But I don't know.
I think they just mean they didn't Google her.
An organization vetted me to work with children. No one asked about my parents or people I hired.
An organization vetted me to work with children. No one asked about my parents or people I hired.
Reddit "...We built a relationship with her first as a mod and then through her contractor work on RPAN. We did not adequately vet her background before formally hiring her..."
No background vetting was required, the episodes in her life that led to the sacking are public knowledge, not deep dark secrets, and one would have thought they would have cropped up during the relationship building.
I do not know what RPAN is.
No background vetting was required, the episodes in her life that led to the sacking are public knowledge, not deep dark secrets, and one would have thought they would have cropped up during the relationship building.
I do not know what RPAN is.
I haven't been on reddit in 3 months and I have no idea whats going on. I could not possibly care less.
You did take the time to comment, so there's probably a little room for less caring.
Sorry for the pedantry, but it is hn, so possibly ok.
Sorry for the pedantry, but it is hn, so possibly ok.
You are correct I did care enough to state how little I cared, but I will submit for the record that I care so little I didn't even read the article.
The end result is fine, removing the employee for failing even a cursory background check in relation to their work, but how on earth did this slip through? Will all employees have their background reviewed more thoroughly?
This strikes me as classic "we got caught, sorry" instead of proactively taking steps to prevent this from happening again.