3 ms·

I think it's a big deal and I wouldn't be in the "alt-right" for sure. Having a CEO of a social media site impersonate users and censor comments calls into que

I think it's a big deal and I wouldn't be in the "alt-right" for sure. Having a CEO of a social media site impersonate users and censor comments calls into question the credibility of the their whole brand. That's not a partisan perspective??? How would you feel if Paul Graham of HN changed your comment to "I am strong supporter of the alt-right?" ...you wouldn't like that. Opposing opinions are fine - using admin priledges to put words to literally put words in users mouths is madness? I already made a comment elsewhere - but I'm surprised they haven't let him go. If reddit were a real company, they wouldn't tolerate that. I wonder what would happen if a middle manager started tampering with user comments - he would be gone.

vidarh 10y ago
As someone firmly left wing (by European standards), I agree. It may very well be that there are "alt-right" people blowing it out of proportion, but that doesn't mean it's not a big deal.
- celticninja 10y ago
  It's not a big deal because it's reddit, a semi anonymous Internet board. It's not like he was editing legal statements.
  - zamalek 10y ago
    > It's not like he was editing legal statements. That is not the case.[1] [1]: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/296680-house-panel-probes-web-rumor-on-clinton-emails http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/296680-house-pan...
  - vidarh 10y ago
    It's a big deal because he was making it seem like users had made statements they haven't made. Maybe these specific instances doesn't matter so much, but the fact he did it, and did it without leaving a visible sign it was edited creates an issue of trust. We now feel less safe that Reddit admins haven't done this in the past too, in cases where it matters more.
zedadex 10y ago
Yeah, it's actually quite a gamechangr. sunglasses Kidding aside, it is, though. It crosses a line that, from a strict point of view (like that of permissions or data security) can't be uncrossed. It's equatable to any and every comment being edited or editable without labelling, presented as the unmarked original. We're approaching the point where reddit comments are seen as valid enough to appear in congressional reports (re: the combetta bleachbit thing); I can't even begin to imagine the legal exposure this would give reddit if that were further along. (Though I guess I can; imagine if this were Twitter or FB; I'm sure some tens of thousands of cases would potentially be under question...) And that's not even approaching the whole 'potential for historical revisionism' can of worms. Don't worry mate - the gravity of this isn't lost on all of us. :)
mxvzr 10y ago
There is also something to be said about a CEO with administrative privileges.
celticninja 10y ago
Seriously? You think he should be let go over this? You think that other CEOs would have been? If so you have not been following the news much.
- 69mlgsniperdad 10y ago
  Imagine Zuckerberg edited your facebook status, secretly, because you said something mean about him. The president elect has posted on reddit account, and has posted. 'Spez' has the power to impersonate and communicate as the president of the US, even retroactively, or anyone else for that matter.
- citruspi 10y ago
  > You think he should be let go over this? Absolutely. > You think that other CEOs would have been? Even if other CEOs who have done similar things have not been let go, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been let go. This was a major breach of trust. > If so you have not been following the news much. Apparently I haven't been following the news much because I haven't heard of any CEOs doing something like this recently. The most "scandalous" (for lack of better word) thing that I've heard of recently concerning CEOs and political stuff was the controversy with GrubHub and Pepsi. If you're referring to events like those, I don't think they're comparable. I don't agree with the actions of those CEOs either, but there's a difference between the CEO of a company taking a stance against a political candidate and the CEO of a social media network putting words in his users' mouths by editing their comments. If you're not referring to stuff like the GrubHub and Pepsi and there have in fact been other CEOs who put words in their users' mouths by editing their comments or posts, I'd love some links. Either way, I still think they should be let go.

vidarh 10y ago

As someone firmly left wing (by European standards), I agree. It may very well be that there are "alt-right" people blowing it out of proportion, but that doesn't mean it's not a big deal.

celticninja 10y ago
It's not a big deal because it's reddit, a semi anonymous Internet board. It's not like he was editing legal statements.
- zamalek 10y ago
  > It's not like he was editing legal statements. That is not the case.[1] [1]: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/296680-house-panel-probes-web-rumor-on-clinton-emails http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/296680-house-pan...
- vidarh 10y ago
  It's a big deal because he was making it seem like users had made statements they haven't made. Maybe these specific instances doesn't matter so much, but the fact he did it, and did it without leaving a visible sign it was edited creates an issue of trust. We now feel less safe that Reddit admins haven't done this in the past too, in cases where it matters more.

zedadex 10y ago

Yeah, it's actually quite a gamechangr. sunglasses Kidding aside, it is, though. It crosses a line that, from a strict point of view (like that of permissions or data security) can't be uncrossed. It's equatable to any and every comment being edited or editable without labelling, presented as the unmarked original. We're approaching the point where reddit comments are seen as valid enough to appear in congressional reports (re: the combetta bleachbit thing); I can't even begin to imagine the legal exposure this would give reddit if that were further along. (Though I guess I can; imagine if this were Twitter or FB; I'm sure some tens of thousands of cases would potentially be under question...) And that's not even approaching the whole 'potential for historical revisionism' can of worms. Don't worry mate - the gravity of this isn't lost on all of us. :)

mxvzr 10y ago

There is also something to be said about a CEO with administrative privileges.

celticninja 10y ago

Seriously? You think he should be let go over this? You think that other CEOs would have been? If so you have not been following the news much.

69mlgsniperdad 10y ago
Imagine Zuckerberg edited your facebook status, secretly, because you said something mean about him. The president elect has posted on reddit account, and has posted. 'Spez' has the power to impersonate and communicate as the president of the US, even retroactively, or anyone else for that matter.
citruspi 10y ago
> You think he should be let go over this? Absolutely. > You think that other CEOs would have been? Even if other CEOs who have done similar things have not been let go, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been let go. This was a major breach of trust. > If so you have not been following the news much. Apparently I haven't been following the news much because I haven't heard of any CEOs doing something like this recently. The most "scandalous" (for lack of better word) thing that I've heard of recently concerning CEOs and political stuff was the controversy with GrubHub and Pepsi. If you're referring to events like those, I don't think they're comparable. I don't agree with the actions of those CEOs either, but there's a difference between the CEO of a company taking a stance against a political candidate and the CEO of a social media network putting words in his users' mouths by editing their comments. If you're not referring to stuff like the GrubHub and Pepsi and there have in fact been other CEOs who put words in their users' mouths by editing their comments or posts, I'd love some links. Either way, I still think they should be let go.