6 ms·

Interesting read. I wonder if the "paid army of trolls" she mentions followed her to Reddit. That would definitely explain the campaign against her.

laksjd 9y ago
This xkcd came to my mind when I read that: https://xkcd.com/1019/ https://xkcd.com/1019/ It's sobering to think about how easy it must be (for a sufficiently funded organisation) to effectively determine "public discourse" on a large number of topics. Then again, never underestimate just how willing people are (all on their own) to grab their virtual pitchforks without much consideration.
- dahdum 9y ago
  She was CEO during the start of a wave of subreddit bans and the dismissal of a very popular Reddit employee (Victoria). Whatever her actual level of involvement in those decisions, I think it's reasonable to say the pitchforks came out because of them. As the trolls found more real or imagined "dirt" about her, it escalated as many were eager to believe it.
  - kristofferR 9y ago
    If I remember correctly she also made some incredibly dumb Reddit comments which indicated that she didn't get Reddit at all.
ramblerman 9y ago
> "paid army of trolls" would definitely explain the campaign against her. She banned a number of subreddits, including /r/fatpeoplehate and revengeporn. A move that strikes pretty deep at what people consider to be an open platform where votes define everything. Subsequently she fired Victoria Taylor, an incredibly popular moderator at /r/ama. This combined with the perceived idea that threads discussing these issues were being banned, caused a huge backlash against her.
- Asdfbla 9y ago
  >Subsequently she fired Victoria Taylor, an incredibly popular moderator at /r/ama. She didn't. Alexis Ohanian did: https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/details-emerge-about-victoria-taylors-dismissal-at-reddit/ https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/details-emerge-abo... She actually did very few of the things the Reddit witchhunt accused her of. The whole Pao affair was just another dark period that showed how insane online communities can really be.
  - Boothroid 9y ago
    Pao's appointment at Reddit always struck me as odd. Was she really the best person they could find?
    - Joeri 9y ago
      Well, obviously she was the best person, otherwise they would not have hired her. The definition of "best" is malleable. You may not understand the reasons why they chose her, but clearly they had them.
      - Boothroid 9y ago
        Are you able to outline these reasons? Because to me it seems like they were making a political point. What special experience did she have that made her a perfect match for that role, other than being a professional victim with poor judgement?
        sctb 9y ago
        This comment doesn't make the grade for civility and substantiveness here.
      - Mithaldu 9y ago
        > "she was the best person" No, based on the evidence she seemed to be the best person. I don't have much of an opinion on what exactly happened, but your claim there is overly confident.
camus2 9y ago
> "paid army of trolls" Unless she has proof, it's a conspiracy theory, "trolls" don't need to be paid to be trolls. People are naturally mean on the internet. Especially on reddit. So trolls paid by whom to do what? she didn't lose her lawsuit because of people on the internet. She lost because she didn't have a case.
- retox 9y ago
  The were probably Russian too.
- pervycreeper 9y ago
  >In response to my suit, Kleiner hired a powerful crisis-management PR firm, Brunswick. On their website, they bragged about having troll farms — “integrated networks of influence,” used in part for “reputation management” — and I believe they enlisted one to defame me online. The "I believe" is the operative phrase in this allegation. It's not implausible, however. Comments everywhere on topics where powerful agents have interests (i.e. everything) seem to be subject to a great deal of astroturfing. The existence of groups that do this is not disputed. The trend seems to be getting a lot more pronounced lately, just by my personal observation.
  - camus2 9y ago
    > The "I believe" is the operative phrase in this allegation. I doesn't make it a fact. It makes the author look like they are paranoid, and it has absolutely no bearing in the verdict of their case. But it says a lot about their personality. One cannot use that type of argument and be expected to be taken seriously, unless one actually bring evidence that a particular firm engaged in harassment, which is a serious accusation since I'm pretty sure it's illegal.
  - Natsu 9y ago
    Well, I mean, that's kind of the question, isn't it? She's sharing a lot of personal anecdotes after losing on her claims about those in court. I do not know what happened or what people actually said, but I won't take the illogical step of inferring things about this case from the outcome of other cases or vice versa and I disliked the fact that this is a lot of scandalous, unverifiable anecdotes that she was not able to credibly establish in a court of law. Harassment is real. I'm a victim of it myself and the guy who put his hands down my pants was fired for that, though I wasn't really working in tech at the time. I managed both to confront him and to prove it. Her claims, however, failed to be proven in court and therefore I do not find her credible, nor can I without new, verifiable evidence. I know too well how high a bar that is, but I wouldn't see it set any lower, not even in my case.

laksjd 9y ago

This xkcd came to my mind when I read that: https://xkcd.com/1019/ https://xkcd.com/1019/ It's sobering to think about how easy it must be (for a sufficiently funded organisation) to effectively determine "public discourse" on a large number of topics. Then again, never underestimate just how willing people are (all on their own) to grab their virtual pitchforks without much consideration.

dahdum 9y ago
She was CEO during the start of a wave of subreddit bans and the dismissal of a very popular Reddit employee (Victoria). Whatever her actual level of involvement in those decisions, I think it's reasonable to say the pitchforks came out because of them. As the trolls found more real or imagined "dirt" about her, it escalated as many were eager to believe it.
- kristofferR 9y ago
  If I remember correctly she also made some incredibly dumb Reddit comments which indicated that she didn't get Reddit at all.

ramblerman 9y ago

> "paid army of trolls" would definitely explain the campaign against her. She banned a number of subreddits, including /r/fatpeoplehate and revengeporn. A move that strikes pretty deep at what people consider to be an open platform where votes define everything. Subsequently she fired Victoria Taylor, an incredibly popular moderator at /r/ama. This combined with the perceived idea that threads discussing these issues were being banned, caused a huge backlash against her.

Asdfbla 9y ago
>Subsequently she fired Victoria Taylor, an incredibly popular moderator at /r/ama. She didn't. Alexis Ohanian did: https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/details-emerge-about-victoria-taylors-dismissal-at-reddit/ https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/details-emerge-abo... She actually did very few of the things the Reddit witchhunt accused her of. The whole Pao affair was just another dark period that showed how insane online communities can really be.
- Boothroid 9y ago
  Pao's appointment at Reddit always struck me as odd. Was she really the best person they could find?
  - Joeri 9y ago
    Well, obviously she was the best person, otherwise they would not have hired her. The definition of "best" is malleable. You may not understand the reasons why they chose her, but clearly they had them.
    - Boothroid 9y ago
      Are you able to outline these reasons? Because to me it seems like they were making a political point. What special experience did she have that made her a perfect match for that role, other than being a professional victim with poor judgement?
      - sctb 9y ago
        This comment doesn't make the grade for civility and substantiveness here.
    - Mithaldu 9y ago
      > "she was the best person" No, based on the evidence she seemed to be the best person. I don't have much of an opinion on what exactly happened, but your claim there is overly confident.

camus2 9y ago

> "paid army of trolls" Unless she has proof, it's a conspiracy theory, "trolls" don't need to be paid to be trolls. People are naturally mean on the internet. Especially on reddit. So trolls paid by whom to do what? she didn't lose her lawsuit because of people on the internet. She lost because she didn't have a case.

retox 9y ago
The were probably Russian too.
pervycreeper 9y ago
>In response to my suit, Kleiner hired a powerful crisis-management PR firm, Brunswick. On their website, they bragged about having troll farms — “integrated networks of influence,” used in part for “reputation management” — and I believe they enlisted one to defame me online. The "I believe" is the operative phrase in this allegation. It's not implausible, however. Comments everywhere on topics where powerful agents have interests (i.e. everything) seem to be subject to a great deal of astroturfing. The existence of groups that do this is not disputed. The trend seems to be getting a lot more pronounced lately, just by my personal observation.
- camus2 9y ago
  > The "I believe" is the operative phrase in this allegation. I doesn't make it a fact. It makes the author look like they are paranoid, and it has absolutely no bearing in the verdict of their case. But it says a lot about their personality. One cannot use that type of argument and be expected to be taken seriously, unless one actually bring evidence that a particular firm engaged in harassment, which is a serious accusation since I'm pretty sure it's illegal.
- Natsu 9y ago
  Well, I mean, that's kind of the question, isn't it? She's sharing a lot of personal anecdotes after losing on her claims about those in court. I do not know what happened or what people actually said, but I won't take the illogical step of inferring things about this case from the outcome of other cases or vice versa and I disliked the fact that this is a lot of scandalous, unverifiable anecdotes that she was not able to credibly establish in a court of law. Harassment is real. I'm a victim of it myself and the guy who put his hands down my pants was fired for that, though I wasn't really working in tech at the time. I managed both to confront him and to prove it. Her claims, however, failed to be proven in court and therefore I do not find her credible, nor can I without new, verifiable evidence. I know too well how high a bar that is, but I wouldn't see it set any lower, not even in my case.