5 ms·

They shouldn't though, if they want to be credible and the site they own/market. Now this is lost.

by tdkl 10y ago

slowmotiony 10y ago
Was reddit ever really credible?
- tdkl 10y ago
  They made sure in the media they are.
Mithaldu 10y ago
imo he's gained credibility
- admax88q 10y ago
  "I don't care what he did so long as it was against those I disagree with."
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    You're thinking too shallow. :) It took people harrassing him personally, and at scale, for him to snap. And even then he did not ban anyone, but did what amounts to a prank. And even then he did not hide it, but owned it and apologized. At every turn of this he showed himself to be a greater man than most of us.
    - tdkl 10y ago
      Lets hope Zuckerberg doesn't snap then, but I'm sure "dumb fucks"* will find an apology for that too. *his words, not mine
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        As long as he follows up in the same mature manner, it'll be unfortunate, but forgivable. :) Also, calling someone a dumbfuck and pretending you didn't just do that because it's "just a quote" is not the greatest a look a person can aim for. ;)
        admax88q 10y ago
        I'm not even sure who he's quoting as calling "dumb fucks"
        nostrademons 10y ago
        Mark Zuckerburg, referring to Facebook users. http://www.businessinsider.com/embarrassing-and-damaging-zuckerberg-ims-confirmed-by-zuckerberg-the-new-yorker-2010-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/embarrassing-and-damaging-zuc...
      - admax88q 10y ago
        > *his words, not mine Who's words?
        burning_stubble 10y ago
        https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg
    - admax88q 10y ago
      Banning them would have been better. Silently editing their comments shows that reddit has very poor data management practices. It shouldn't be possible for the CEO to edit content like that.
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        There's no forum where the people running it don't have trivially easy access to do what he did. The point is that he has clearly shown what kind of thing it takes to push him that far, and it's clearly not done trivially. E: I'm trying to say, your perspective is off. Reddit is an internet humor place. Just because it's big enough to have a CEO doesn't mean it's suddenly run with all the seriousness and as tight as a bank.
        samstave 10y ago
        Thats a fair comment, but my point about calling this a prank being absolute BS still stands...
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        I hope you don't mind i reply to your 3 comments in one: You're overreacting. Your concern about having done reddit a blow is exaggerated and in a few weeks maybe a handful of people at best will care, because most people understand the circumstances in which it happened, how a forum works, and how it's unlikely for something like this to happen again. As for the prank thing. Your comparisons are ridiculous and not remotely similar. You're highly agitated and not thinking clearly it seems. Try and do whatever helps you calm down normally.
        samstave 10y ago
        I dont mind that you reply to multi-with-one.... Sure, I am agitated - but given that if anyone who has ever worked for me on any system who had root access to a publicly used (by many millions of people) changed content from the ACTUAL USERBASE based on their ego being hurt, they would be fired on the spot. A statement would be made saying that we are assessing our data-access policies and auditing who has access to what. You state I am "over reacting" but are you not aware that the entire premise of credibility in data driven companies is based on access to data? Have you ever been through ANY audits ever? I am going to make a simple foundational audit question to you: "Who has access to the financial information of the company" "Well, our VP of IT, the CFO, the CEO are the only three" So... this CEO of reddit has been known to abuse his power in his own companies product to edit the contents of that product (userbase comments with interests in various topics which is a sellable marketing package).... So... whos to say if he reacts like this that he wont edit the financials/user-base counts/whatever he has access to if he isnt happy with the data????? THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL trust issue with him... to blow it off as a prank is abhorrent. Does this not make sense?
    - samstave 10y ago
      >but did what amounts to a prank. This is the stupidest comment I have read. "Don't worry bro, I only shot you as a prank!" "Don't worry bro, I only slept with your wife as a prank!" This isa CEO of an incredibly far reaching site who was personally EDITING the posts of users on his site because his ego was hurt. This is ridiculous!!!
      - SwellJoe 10y ago
        "Don't worry bro, I only shot you as a prank!" Have you ever heard of "false equivalence"?
        samstave 10y ago
        "I just committed a mass edit on posts on one of the largest public forums on the internet with 100's of millions of users who want to share their perspective and opinions - where that site I did these edits on is where I am CEO -- and I was upset, within the context of how my ego was hurt -- but it was just a prank" "IT WAS A PRANK BRO" You need to take some time to evaluate you're understanding of "false" equivalence. /u/spez is falsely equating his actions with a "prank"
    - omilu 10y ago
      >> And even then he did not hide it, but owned it and apologized. Only after he got.
  - siidooloo 10y ago
    The people he did this to were jabbing him in the eye with a sharp stick because reddit took action against them for falsley accusing people of being pedophiles. His action was wrong. But it was provoked.
    - admax88q 10y ago
      That was my point with comments like "imo he's gained credibility" There are other comments celebrating what he did because it was again /r/the_donald "trolls." Lot's of people don't care what actions you take so long as its against a group/individual that they don't like. That is short sighted thinking IMO.
      - SwellJoe 10y ago
        I think the distinction is behavior, not "people they don't like". Witch hunts are against the guidelines of reddit; that's not a secret. Whether you support Trump or not isn't relevant, if you're on a witch hunt. Likewise, posting personal information has, from almost the very beginning of reddit, been the one cardinal sin. The sin that'll get you banned or a subreddit closed down. That's what spez was responding to. He did it in a terribly immature way that I could never condone (unless it were really funny, like this, in which case, I think it's hilarious). But, it was not a random "I don't like this group" situation, and to frame it that way is to manipulate the narrative. The behavior in question was a witch hunt, and against reddit rules; the witch hunt started because a subreddit was banned for posting (tons of!) personal information and launching a witch hunt against a random restaurant and bar and its owners. Again, that's clearly against reddit rules. Those rules are reasonable, and if someone doesn't like them, they should take their shit elsewhere. It's not about not liking The_Donald. Nobody likes The_Donald, but reddit has always been more than fair in dealing with all of their bullshit; the vote brigades (against reddit rules), the orchestrated abuse of other subs and moderators and users, etc. Large swaths of them probably should have been banned months ago. But, Steve has always been slow to ban. Probably to a fault. When you fail to ban folks like this you breed a community of people like this, who feel entitled to be abusive without response.

They shouldn't though, if they want to be credible and the site they own/market. Now this is lost.

by tdkl 10y ago

They shouldn't though, if they want to be credible and the site they own/market. Now this is lost.

slowmotiony 10y ago

Was reddit ever really credible?

tdkl 10y ago
They made sure in the media they are.

Mithaldu 10y ago

imo he's gained credibility

admax88q 10y ago
"I don't care what he did so long as it was against those I disagree with."
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  You're thinking too shallow. :) It took people harrassing him personally, and at scale, for him to snap. And even then he did not ban anyone, but did what amounts to a prank. And even then he did not hide it, but owned it and apologized. At every turn of this he showed himself to be a greater man than most of us.
  - tdkl 10y ago
    Lets hope Zuckerberg doesn't snap then, but I'm sure "dumb fucks"* will find an apology for that too. *his words, not mine
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      As long as he follows up in the same mature manner, it'll be unfortunate, but forgivable. :) Also, calling someone a dumbfuck and pretending you didn't just do that because it's "just a quote" is not the greatest a look a person can aim for. ;)
      - admax88q 10y ago
        I'm not even sure who he's quoting as calling "dumb fucks"
        nostrademons 10y ago
        Mark Zuckerburg, referring to Facebook users. http://www.businessinsider.com/embarrassing-and-damaging-zuckerberg-ims-confirmed-by-zuckerberg-the-new-yorker-2010-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/embarrassing-and-damaging-zuc...
    - admax88q 10y ago
      > *his words, not mine Who's words?
      - burning_stubble 10y ago
        https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg
  - admax88q 10y ago
    Banning them would have been better. Silently editing their comments shows that reddit has very poor data management practices. It shouldn't be possible for the CEO to edit content like that.
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      There's no forum where the people running it don't have trivially easy access to do what he did. The point is that he has clearly shown what kind of thing it takes to push him that far, and it's clearly not done trivially. E: I'm trying to say, your perspective is off. Reddit is an internet humor place. Just because it's big enough to have a CEO doesn't mean it's suddenly run with all the seriousness and as tight as a bank.
      - samstave 10y ago
        Thats a fair comment, but my point about calling this a prank being absolute BS still stands...
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        I hope you don't mind i reply to your 3 comments in one: You're overreacting. Your concern about having done reddit a blow is exaggerated and in a few weeks maybe a handful of people at best will care, because most people understand the circumstances in which it happened, how a forum works, and how it's unlikely for something like this to happen again. As for the prank thing. Your comparisons are ridiculous and not remotely similar. You're highly agitated and not thinking clearly it seems. Try and do whatever helps you calm down normally.
        samstave 10y ago
        I dont mind that you reply to multi-with-one.... Sure, I am agitated - but given that if anyone who has ever worked for me on any system who had root access to a publicly used (by many millions of people) changed content from the ACTUAL USERBASE based on their ego being hurt, they would be fired on the spot. A statement would be made saying that we are assessing our data-access policies and auditing who has access to what. You state I am "over reacting" but are you not aware that the entire premise of credibility in data driven companies is based on access to data? Have you ever been through ANY audits ever? I am going to make a simple foundational audit question to you: "Who has access to the financial information of the company" "Well, our VP of IT, the CFO, the CEO are the only three" So... this CEO of reddit has been known to abuse his power in his own companies product to edit the contents of that product (userbase comments with interests in various topics which is a sellable marketing package).... So... whos to say if he reacts like this that he wont edit the financials/user-base counts/whatever he has access to if he isnt happy with the data????? THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL trust issue with him... to blow it off as a prank is abhorrent. Does this not make sense?
  - samstave 10y ago
    >but did what amounts to a prank. This is the stupidest comment I have read. "Don't worry bro, I only shot you as a prank!" "Don't worry bro, I only slept with your wife as a prank!" This isa CEO of an incredibly far reaching site who was personally EDITING the posts of users on his site because his ego was hurt. This is ridiculous!!!
    - SwellJoe 10y ago
      "Don't worry bro, I only shot you as a prank!" Have you ever heard of "false equivalence"?
      - samstave 10y ago
        "I just committed a mass edit on posts on one of the largest public forums on the internet with 100's of millions of users who want to share their perspective and opinions - where that site I did these edits on is where I am CEO -- and I was upset, within the context of how my ego was hurt -- but it was just a prank" "IT WAS A PRANK BRO" You need to take some time to evaluate you're understanding of "false" equivalence. /u/spez is falsely equating his actions with a "prank"
  - omilu 10y ago
    >> And even then he did not hide it, but owned it and apologized. Only after he got.
- siidooloo 10y ago
  The people he did this to were jabbing him in the eye with a sharp stick because reddit took action against them for falsley accusing people of being pedophiles. His action was wrong. But it was provoked.
  - admax88q 10y ago
    That was my point with comments like "imo he's gained credibility" There are other comments celebrating what he did because it was again /r/the_donald "trolls." Lot's of people don't care what actions you take so long as its against a group/individual that they don't like. That is short sighted thinking IMO.
    - SwellJoe 10y ago
      I think the distinction is behavior, not "people they don't like". Witch hunts are against the guidelines of reddit; that's not a secret. Whether you support Trump or not isn't relevant, if you're on a witch hunt. Likewise, posting personal information has, from almost the very beginning of reddit, been the one cardinal sin. The sin that'll get you banned or a subreddit closed down. That's what spez was responding to. He did it in a terribly immature way that I could never condone (unless it were really funny, like this, in which case, I think it's hilarious). But, it was not a random "I don't like this group" situation, and to frame it that way is to manipulate the narrative. The behavior in question was a witch hunt, and against reddit rules; the witch hunt started because a subreddit was banned for posting (tons of!) personal information and launching a witch hunt against a random restaurant and bar and its owners. Again, that's clearly against reddit rules. Those rules are reasonable, and if someone doesn't like them, they should take their shit elsewhere. It's not about not liking The_Donald. Nobody likes The_Donald, but reddit has always been more than fair in dealing with all of their bullshit; the vote brigades (against reddit rules), the orchestrated abuse of other subs and moderators and users, etc. Large swaths of them probably should have been banned months ago. But, Steve has always been slow to ban. Probably to a fault. When you fail to ban folks like this you breed a community of people like this, who feel entitled to be abusive without response.