811–820 of 877 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.reddit.com/user/spez Did you think I would be tricked by your lie?
This is totally out of line, and we ban accounts that do it repeatedly. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 tha…
And do you know something about Victoria's firing that everyone else doesn't? Do you know why she was fired?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 censo…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 havi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 censo…
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 Freed…
Hah yeah because speaking up against these mobs can lead to getting DOXed. What an insane world we live in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 b…
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 hones…
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.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 en…
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 t…
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 is banned because of , but that rule doesn't apply everywhere, then it wasn't actually banned because of , 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?)
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 Red…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 a…
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.