4 ms·

I am sorry for him. I know as a fact that he’s brilliant and fully deserves the position, but given the circumstances (Ohanian resigning and calling for someone

by nisuni 6y ago

I am sorry for him. I know as a fact that he’s brilliant and fully deserves the position, but given the circumstances (Ohanian resigning and calling for someone black to replace him) he will always have to live with people having the reasonable doubt that he didn’t arrive there for merit alone.

obilgic 6y ago
You could say that to any "first X to become/do Y"
- casefields 6y ago
  Obama? How would that even work? Bush saying hey guys, I believe we should... He got there on merit.
- nine_k 6y ago
  No; some of the first to become have become them in spite their being special (a black, a white, a woman, etc).
- bluedino 6y ago
  More like "first to be appointed to" There rarely negative connotation attached to accomplishing something or earning something based on merit and not some other factor. It's seen along the lines of nepotism.
digitaltrees 6y ago
Anyone that remotely thinks that is an idiot. Michael is a fucking force of nature and one of the most impressive people you will ever meet. Seriously, if that thought ever comes up in your presence attack it head on because the person expressing it needs a big fucking gut check. Honestly, even you saying this is BS.
- nisuni 6y ago
  That’s not about Michael, we both agree on his outstanding qualifications and on the fact that he fully deserved the job. That’s about hirings based (also) on skin color rather than merit alone.
  - digitaltrees 6y ago
    BS. the passive aggressive argument used to undermine efforts to build more representative colleges, companies, and institutions is just a subtle form of racism that doesn't get applied to white people. I don't really see people make the same argument about hiring legacy applicants, college friends, or former coworkers, all of which tend to be similar people demographics. Sure maybe it isn't explicit racial bias but if the decision maker is selecting from a pool of already racially filtered candidates the effect is the same. So yes, it is about Michael because he has to deal with this crap of people "just asking the question".
- casefields 6y ago
  99% of the world, and 99.999% of reddit, has no clue who he is. Nor do they know anyone that has first hand knowledge of working with him. All they'll know is the the way the previous guy stepped down, and what he requested. I understand it's a terrible position to be put in.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    I think only a small percent amount of reddit and a smaller percent of the world will know the way Ohanian stepped down or this guy stepped in. For most people it will be "I'm on the board of reddit." "Oh, cool." For people who think it was because of skin color, they may think less of him or of reddit, but presumably he made that choice going in and is okay with the costs and benefits. I have a rare (and not at all serious) medical condition. If reddit said they were selecting board members only with this condition I would happily apply and take the position even if everyone would say I only got it because of my condition and even if that were true. The cost is people would think I benefited from luck or circumstance and the reward is being able to meaningfully influence a major website and money. Hardly seems like a terrible trade to me.
  - julianeon 6y ago
    People are acting like Seibel's about to assume the role of President of the Universe. It's just the reddit board. If it's so awesome, can you name the other people who are on it, as of today? Guaranteed that 95% of the people reading this did not know that this august institution also includes, and would not have known were it not for this comment: Sam Altman (famous, not surprising) Robert Sauerberg (probably less famous than Seibel before being named to this) Porter Gale (ditto) I'm sure these are good people, doing important work. But there's 4 of them in all, Seibel's just one, and the net effect may be less consequential than people here imagine.
    - admin1010 6y ago
      I thought Keith Rabois was on the board too.
      - 6y ago
- cmdshiftf4 6y ago
  >Honestly, even you saying this is BS. "I want my replacement to be a black person" -> black person is hired -> "were they hired because of their race?" You: How dare you even imply they were hired based on their race! If anyone is bullshitting anyone here, it's you bullshitting yourself. The sheer mental gymnastics you're working through here to be outraged at the above must take a terrible toll. This is to say nothing of the candidate. I'm no judge of Board of Director candidates, and largely feel it's entirely based on connections and not what you the person is capable of, but his resume and presence in the industry has obviously been stellar. I wish him well in dealing with the utter cesspit that is 2020 Reddit.com.
  - digitaltrees 6y ago
    Except that no one says white people that hire friends--most of which are white friends from their childhood and school background--are racially motivated and yet the impact is white people hire more white people. This implicit bias might not be intended to be harmful, but it is racially informed. If we, as a society say we need to make a conscious effort to have more decision makers from a variety of backgrounds so that this human tendency to hire friends and people we know can actually result in a broader group of people being able to access opportunity. I still say allowing people to be passive aggressive and "ask the question" about whether someone is qualified because there was a effort to be inclusive is a way to undermine the credibility of the candidate and this effort doesn't seem to ever be directed at white people. You ever hear someone question another executive for hiring a college frat brother? or someone that worked at the same investment bank? Hiring preferences exist.
    - cmdshiftf4 6y ago
      Yes - in-group bias is a real thing and is prominent across all races, ethnicities, religions, nationalities etc. But in-group bias has literally nothing to do with the conversation we're having here.
      - digitaltrees 6y ago
        Yes it does. Building a board and management team that is more representative of the demographics in society is an effort to reduce the effect of in group bias. This is important because the argument that someone picked with their race in mind to achieve this goal is used to create the subtext that the person would not otherwise have been qualified and is used to undermine their legitimacy and the legitimacy of the goal to eliminate in group bias. This is a real problem because it distorts the discussion from the real argument. In reality if we want a true meritocracy, as most proponents of anti affirmative action / opponents diversity goals claim then we should want the widest funnel of candidates possible. What we actually have is a small funnel of people that, while not intentionally racist, classist or discriminatory, results in exclusion of many people. We’re all worse of for it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
arkitaip 6y ago
I doubt it. Anyone with the slightest knowledge about Seibel knows that he is super competent. What Reddit will judge him on will be what they perceive as hypocritical policy making; loss of subreddit and user power; and the lack of transparency.
- Natsu 6y ago
  I think most of the world doesn't have the slightest knowledge of him, though. This is really sad because everyone I see on here who does know him is saying great things about him.
- whymauri 6y ago
  I think people are interpreting this comment as suggesting what this HN user will judge Seibel on. I don't think that's what arkitaip is conveying. I believe they are just stating the parameters that Reddit has often judged high-profile executives or board members on, e.g., Ellen Pao. The keyword here is "perceive."
metalens 6y ago
I am not sorry for him. What is your definition of merit for a board position? As far as I know, board positions are often filled based on explicitly subjective criteria, e.g. such subjective criteria might be: Who is currently on the board and what personality/skillset/experience does the board need in order to balance its membership? Who does the company & board need in order to: raise as much money as possible, be introduced to the desired go-to-market partners, look good to customers, [insert any other subjective criteria here] etc. I am not aware of the concept of objective "merit" when it comes to board of directors appointments. ~corrected for bad grammar~
- aSplash0fDerp 6y ago
  As disposible as Internet things are, it's nice that we are seeing what "could happen" when disagreements occur (its less valuable now). Even if Walmart or Amazon disappeared, there would be another company there to fill the void (and very few would miss them), so with online opinion boards being a sithoshi a dozen, seddit4u is not the same thing as reddit.
rat87 6y ago
I don't see how it's in any way or form reasonable. Of course a lot of jerks and trolls will have unreasonable and frequently racist assumptions that he "wasn't the most qualified" and that sucks
isoskeles 6y ago
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but good joke if you are.
meritoftheboard 6y ago
The other board members are - Sam Altman, lead investor in Reddit's Series B and former president of YCombinator, the company that gave Reddit its initial funding - Bob Sauerberg, former CEO and president of Conde Nast, the company that acquired Reddit while YC was the only investor Unless you think "gave Reddit a bunch of money" is merit, the other board members didn't get their positions through merit alone either. Board seats are almost always purchased as part of an investment or given for political reasons, there's nothing different happening here.
downerending 6y ago
Meh. If someone wants to pay me for the color of my skin, I'll cry all the way to the bank. Not like the Reddit board does anything useful. I'm happy for him.
fortran77 6y ago
NOBODY gets board positions based on merit. For an extreme case, see the Theranos board.
jcims 6y ago
This is one of the underlying problems with affirmative action in recruiting and employment. The question that’s difficult to answer is if the end justifies the means. It probably does, but it’s not always clear.
Traster 6y ago
I actually think reddit has fallen in to the opposite trap here. Because of the increased scrutiny that people of colour get when being put in these roles we see this trend that only massively over-qualified PoC are being put in these roles. As a result you end up in a situation where you aim for an increase in diversity but in reality you end up with a handful of people who are rotated through all the possible positions. Simply because everyone wants the signalling of hiring diverse people, but no one wants to take risks when doing that.
- metalens 6y ago
  Absolute agreed with you here.

by nisuni 6y ago

obilgic 6y ago

You could say that to any "first X to become/do Y"

casefields 6y ago
Obama? How would that even work? Bush saying hey guys, I believe we should... He got there on merit.
nine_k 6y ago
No; some of the first to become have become them in spite their being special (a black, a white, a woman, etc).
bluedino 6y ago
More like "first to be appointed to" There rarely negative connotation attached to accomplishing something or earning something based on merit and not some other factor. It's seen along the lines of nepotism.

digitaltrees 6y ago

Anyone that remotely thinks that is an idiot. Michael is a fucking force of nature and one of the most impressive people you will ever meet. Seriously, if that thought ever comes up in your presence attack it head on because the person expressing it needs a big fucking gut check. Honestly, even you saying this is BS.

nisuni 6y ago
That’s not about Michael, we both agree on his outstanding qualifications and on the fact that he fully deserved the job. That’s about hirings based (also) on skin color rather than merit alone.
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  BS. the passive aggressive argument used to undermine efforts to build more representative colleges, companies, and institutions is just a subtle form of racism that doesn't get applied to white people. I don't really see people make the same argument about hiring legacy applicants, college friends, or former coworkers, all of which tend to be similar people demographics. Sure maybe it isn't explicit racial bias but if the decision maker is selecting from a pool of already racially filtered candidates the effect is the same. So yes, it is about Michael because he has to deal with this crap of people "just asking the question".
casefields 6y ago
99% of the world, and 99.999% of reddit, has no clue who he is. Nor do they know anyone that has first hand knowledge of working with him. All they'll know is the the way the previous guy stepped down, and what he requested. I understand it's a terrible position to be put in.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  I think only a small percent amount of reddit and a smaller percent of the world will know the way Ohanian stepped down or this guy stepped in. For most people it will be "I'm on the board of reddit." "Oh, cool." For people who think it was because of skin color, they may think less of him or of reddit, but presumably he made that choice going in and is okay with the costs and benefits. I have a rare (and not at all serious) medical condition. If reddit said they were selecting board members only with this condition I would happily apply and take the position even if everyone would say I only got it because of my condition and even if that were true. The cost is people would think I benefited from luck or circumstance and the reward is being able to meaningfully influence a major website and money. Hardly seems like a terrible trade to me.
- julianeon 6y ago
  People are acting like Seibel's about to assume the role of President of the Universe. It's just the reddit board. If it's so awesome, can you name the other people who are on it, as of today? Guaranteed that 95% of the people reading this did not know that this august institution also includes, and would not have known were it not for this comment: Sam Altman (famous, not surprising) Robert Sauerberg (probably less famous than Seibel before being named to this) Porter Gale (ditto) I'm sure these are good people, doing important work. But there's 4 of them in all, Seibel's just one, and the net effect may be less consequential than people here imagine.
  - admin1010 6y ago
    I thought Keith Rabois was on the board too.
    - 6y ago
cmdshiftf4 6y ago
>Honestly, even you saying this is BS. "I want my replacement to be a black person" -> black person is hired -> "were they hired because of their race?" You: How dare you even imply they were hired based on their race! If anyone is bullshitting anyone here, it's you bullshitting yourself. The sheer mental gymnastics you're working through here to be outraged at the above must take a terrible toll. This is to say nothing of the candidate. I'm no judge of Board of Director candidates, and largely feel it's entirely based on connections and not what you the person is capable of, but his resume and presence in the industry has obviously been stellar. I wish him well in dealing with the utter cesspit that is 2020 Reddit.com.
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  Except that no one says white people that hire friends--most of which are white friends from their childhood and school background--are racially motivated and yet the impact is white people hire more white people. This implicit bias might not be intended to be harmful, but it is racially informed. If we, as a society say we need to make a conscious effort to have more decision makers from a variety of backgrounds so that this human tendency to hire friends and people we know can actually result in a broader group of people being able to access opportunity. I still say allowing people to be passive aggressive and "ask the question" about whether someone is qualified because there was a effort to be inclusive is a way to undermine the credibility of the candidate and this effort doesn't seem to ever be directed at white people. You ever hear someone question another executive for hiring a college frat brother? or someone that worked at the same investment bank? Hiring preferences exist.
  - cmdshiftf4 6y ago
    Yes - in-group bias is a real thing and is prominent across all races, ethnicities, religions, nationalities etc. But in-group bias has literally nothing to do with the conversation we're having here.
    - digitaltrees 6y ago
      Yes it does. Building a board and management team that is more representative of the demographics in society is an effort to reduce the effect of in group bias. This is important because the argument that someone picked with their race in mind to achieve this goal is used to create the subtext that the person would not otherwise have been qualified and is used to undermine their legitimacy and the legitimacy of the goal to eliminate in group bias. This is a real problem because it distorts the discussion from the real argument. In reality if we want a true meritocracy, as most proponents of anti affirmative action / opponents diversity goals claim then we should want the widest funnel of candidates possible. What we actually have is a small funnel of people that, while not intentionally racist, classist or discriminatory, results in exclusion of many people. We’re all worse of for it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

arkitaip 6y ago

I doubt it. Anyone with the slightest knowledge about Seibel knows that he is super competent. What Reddit will judge him on will be what they perceive as hypocritical policy making; loss of subreddit and user power; and the lack of transparency.

Natsu 6y ago
I think most of the world doesn't have the slightest knowledge of him, though. This is really sad because everyone I see on here who does know him is saying great things about him.
whymauri 6y ago
I think people are interpreting this comment as suggesting what this HN user will judge Seibel on. I don't think that's what arkitaip is conveying. I believe they are just stating the parameters that Reddit has often judged high-profile executives or board members on, e.g., Ellen Pao. The keyword here is "perceive."

metalens 6y ago

I am not sorry for him. What is your definition of merit for a board position? As far as I know, board positions are often filled based on explicitly subjective criteria, e.g. such subjective criteria might be: Who is currently on the board and what personality/skillset/experience does the board need in order to balance its membership? Who does the company & board need in order to: raise as much money as possible, be introduced to the desired go-to-market partners, look good to customers, [insert any other subjective criteria here] etc. I am not aware of the concept of objective "merit" when it comes to board of directors appointments. ~corrected for bad grammar~

aSplash0fDerp 6y ago
As disposible as Internet things are, it's nice that we are seeing what "could happen" when disagreements occur (its less valuable now). Even if Walmart or Amazon disappeared, there would be another company there to fill the void (and very few would miss them), so with online opinion boards being a sithoshi a dozen, seddit4u is not the same thing as reddit.

rat87 6y ago

I don't see how it's in any way or form reasonable. Of course a lot of jerks and trolls will have unreasonable and frequently racist assumptions that he "wasn't the most qualified" and that sucks

isoskeles 6y ago

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but good joke if you are.

meritoftheboard 6y ago

The other board members are - Sam Altman, lead investor in Reddit's Series B and former president of YCombinator, the company that gave Reddit its initial funding - Bob Sauerberg, former CEO and president of Conde Nast, the company that acquired Reddit while YC was the only investor Unless you think "gave Reddit a bunch of money" is merit, the other board members didn't get their positions through merit alone either. Board seats are almost always purchased as part of an investment or given for political reasons, there's nothing different happening here.

downerending 6y ago

Meh. If someone wants to pay me for the color of my skin, I'll cry all the way to the bank. Not like the Reddit board does anything useful. I'm happy for him.

fortran77 6y ago

NOBODY gets board positions based on merit. For an extreme case, see the Theranos board.

jcims 6y ago

This is one of the underlying problems with affirmative action in recruiting and employment. The question that’s difficult to answer is if the end justifies the means. It probably does, but it’s not always clear.

Traster 6y ago

I actually think reddit has fallen in to the opposite trap here. Because of the increased scrutiny that people of colour get when being put in these roles we see this trend that only massively over-qualified PoC are being put in these roles. As a result you end up in a situation where you aim for an increase in diversity but in reality you end up with a handful of people who are rotated through all the possible positions. Simply because everyone wants the signalling of hiring diverse people, but no one wants to take risks when doing that.

metalens 6y ago
Absolute agreed with you here.