211–220 of 353 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the government wants to use them to pressure Reddit, they can and will. In this instance, Tencent and the government are functionally equivalent.
Using that logic, the CIA and almost every company in existence is functionally equivalent. This is just sloppy thinking. You have to show evidence for your opinions. In this particular instance, do you have any specific evidence?
I smiled on the inside when I noticed this -- people posting all kinds of content exposing China -- earlier in my r/all feed. Great effort by the community.
(Yes, not comments about how bad the government is, rather racist comments about Chinese people.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't just censorship in the traditional sense, Huffman changed someone else's content that was posted. What an insane and unbelievably poor decision by the CEO of a major company. 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 s…
>but the injustice Let's chill out with the over-the-top rhetoric because few of us are paying customers of reddit and it's their database at the end of the day. Stop manufacturing outrage please
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.
It wasn't just censorship in the traditional sense, Huffman changed someone else's content that was posted. What an insane and unbelievably poor decision by the CEO of a major company. 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 s…
Who said it needs to be corrected? Is the Reddit CEO in the business of killing golden geese? 'Post edit' scandal notwithstanding?
Reddit profits from a combination of true believers, sophisticated attention merchants, and fly-by-night lurkers who keep the ad execs convinced that clicks equal purchases.
They don't seem to be at risk of losing any of these.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are there examples of companies that said “this is enough money” and stopped concentrating on having ever increasing profits every quarter to satisfy VC or stock investors? Yes, except they're most often private companies and not publicly traded. Many of these inspirational companies are family owned and operated. Eventually, however, someone will get in charge of the company who isn't satisfied with "good enough"…
Off topic: I love the Jiffy Mix except last I checked it has trans fats in it. I wish they would remove that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is also the same argument people make about evidence from seized hard drives, but nobody cares.
Well, making it without proof is a shallow defense. 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,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but the injustice Let's chill out with the over-the-top rhetoric because few of us are paying customers of reddit and it's their database at the end of the day. Stop manufacturing outrage please
I see your point, but it's bad for Reddit, too. Can their users (and consumers of their ads) trust that posts aren't being doctored?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't just censorship in the traditional sense, Huffman changed someone else's content that was posted. What an insane and unbelievably poor decision by the CEO of a major company. 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 s…
>but the injustice Let's chill out with the over-the-top rhetoric because few of us are paying customers of reddit and it's their database at the end of the day. Stop manufacturing outrage please
As others have pointed out, people have gone to jail for what they write on social media and forums. If the universal expectation that a user's posted words are theirs and theirs alone breaks down, as Huffman showed us can be done, then platforms like Reddit can become much more dangerous.
> it's their database at the end of the day.
and that gives them free reign to do whatever they like to content that other people post? If Huffman decided one day that he didn't like you and retroactively edited posts on your Reddit account to make you sound like a white nationalist, that would be wrong, correct?
How would tencent owning a minor stake in reddit allow it to censor the site? Or is this outrage mostly because tencent is a Chinese firm? I mean, censorship only works if you have the government backing you, are people legitimately fear the US government is going to bow down to a Chinese company?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's not always possible — secure audit trails can exist. The web cowboy world just doesn't care.
The argument here isn't if he should have did it, he obviously shouldn't have. The argument is about how incredibly overdone the outrage over the specific circumstances is.