191–200 of 353 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so. While they do have a feel-good narrative about space exploration, they're still focusing heavily on growth (and profits down the road). They definitely haven't said "this is enough, we don't need to grow anymore."
However they haven't apparently pivoted into weaponry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The CEO edited the post of a user because they criticized him or something. I can't believe how quickly that's been forgotten. The CEO changed a single post from "fuck " to "fuck " for an hour. While certainly this action was not received well, the drama it caused is way overblown and isn't evidence of being 'plagued with censorship.' If anything it's plagued with shills from governments and corporations.
> the drama it caused is way overblown People have been arrested because of Reddit posts they made. If the admins can edit comments without any indication to the users... They can falsely accuse you of a crime. They can also identify you and ban you specially if you do or say things not in alignment with the founders of Reddit(criticizing Serina Williams got a subreddit banned recently).
I firmly believe people should be held responsible for what they say and do but there has to be freedom to say things that are offensive or scary or there's no protection for any speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously. I’ve read some pretty extreme right wing views around the internet and NONE of them can be found on reddit (e.g. Charles Lindbergh’s views on ecofascism) (I’m a conservationist). It’s not a right wing haven. They’ve allowed a sub for the sitting president, but censored everything else that isn’t really tame.
Don't you mean it's not an extremist right-wing haven? I've seen plenty of ant-left, anti-feminist, anti-liberal, anti-democracy, right wing conspiracy stuff on Reddit, and of course mainstream conservative and right-wing political content. But I don't necessarily think it's censorship to draw a line in the sand where extremism is concerned. Or if it is, then it's censhorship employed for reasons other than mere poli…
And extremism is subjective. You could say America is extremist capitalist. Sure we don’t burn books or kill dissidents, but we kill millions through unhealthy food, we have millions addicted to painkillers, porn, social media, and many spend half of their adult lives in a room typing on a computer. All permissible because it’s good for a profit. I’d call that extreme.
Whether you agree with an extreme view doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be allowed to talk about it. Some views that are extreme to you are not extreme to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this hypothesis where true couldn't you just build a niche Reddit clone that is run as a non-profit. People certainly would switch if it is so much better.
This is the premise behind https://blog.tildes.net/announcing-tildes Sadly invite only for now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it is not. Users need to know the conversation is coherent. Real. Reddit is not always casual chat. There is hide, delete and edit with a clear history for all involved. Touching the database changes the record of reality without leaving history of it happening. The database edit is what drove the spez controversy.
This is also the same argument people make about evidence from seized hard drives, but nobody cares.
People do care. And this is a basic trust problem inherent to computing.
Ever notice how there is often redundancy and history present?
This is why.
Another place this shows up is electronic voting. Lack of personally identifiable records leave people in a position of forced trust, unable to know the record is accurate.
Motive plays a role here.
Spez had a childish, bigger dick type ego motive. Untrustworthy.
The same exact thing done to protect someone, and done with rational communication would be far less controversial.
As for the hard drive, the defense must speak to motive and it must be compelling, or we are all likely to trust the person doing that necessary work.
Your comparison is germane, but too simple, in my view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you imagine the reaction if a user's post on HN were edited by YC? I guess it'd be the instant death of the network. That this action a) happened on Reddit + b) was mostly/quickly forgotten says a lot about the different demographics. Audiences who largely come for cat pictures and political snark don't have to worry about CEOs breaking the 4th wall. I've been a Redditor for 9+ years and I still am one. But today…
I casually browsed Reddit as a non-account user for five or six years, then used it frequently for roughly two years with an account. Then the practice of aggressive censorship and banning began, as they started to try to transform it into another giant social media business. I stopped visiting entirely as it turned into an unhinged disaster leading up to the 2016 election. I doubt I'll ever bother to return. I aband…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it is not. Users need to know the conversation is coherent. Real. Reddit is not always casual chat. There is hide, delete and edit with a clear history for all involved. Touching the database changes the record of reality without leaving history of it happening. The database edit is what drove the spez controversy.
Again, this is always possible, its possible on HN, its possible on gmail, its possible on every single site on the internet, that is how the technology works. This isn't some kind of dark secret backdoor spez built into the reddit codebase. Immature and stupid action maybe, but some kind of scary sentinel of how admin power can be uniquely abused at reddit, it isn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But in how many cases has a CEO of a multi-million-user site done it themselves, off the cuff? It means there's no oversight. Oversight isn't expected if you're using Joe Schmoe's 2 person game forum. It's expected at Reddit.
CEO asks underlings for access to production servers, for whatever reason. How many are going to say no?
If the company is public, all of this is covered under SOX compliance or other regulations. If you're truly going to get fired by the CEO for not complying, better that than be the one thrown under the bus when the SEC (or other gov body) comes knocking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
They have not changed. Well, same wolf, new clothes made by sheep. They persecute religious groups, Muslim, Christian, and Buddhist alike. They control their laborers, harvest organs from prisoners, and they've been occupying Tibet since 1949 and actively pursue families that send their children to Buddhist schools.
Reddit has long been plagued with censorship. The CEO edited the post of a user because they criticized him or something. I can't believe how quickly that's been forgotten. The Reddit situation reminds me of the post about failing to build a billion dollar company a few days ago. Reddit is trying to make VCs happy and continue to grow the business, but a platform like Reddit is best as a less reliant on growth, but s…
>The CEO edited the post of a user because they criticized him or something. I can't believe how quickly that's been forgotten. The CEO changed a single post from "fuck " to "fuck " for an hour. While certainly this action was not received well, the drama it caused is way overblown and isn't evidence of being 'plagued with censorship.' If anything it's plagued with shills from governments and corporations.
Sure, the size of Huffman's change was small and limited in scope, but the injustice that it represented combined with the incredible lack of judgment by the Chief Executive rightfully rightfully caused a loud response.
He absolutely should've been fired for it, or permanently lost DB access at a bare minimum.
> If anything it's plagued with shills from governments and corporations.
Again, accountability for that behavior ultimately rests on the executive team, no? If content generation or interaction, the core of Reddit's business, is being manipulated, who bears responsibility to correct it?