8 ms·
Why stick to the insular Silicon Valley club and not get someone who's devoted their life to civil rights? There are a ton of community activists who could actu
by henryfjordan 6y ago
Why stick to the insular Silicon Valley club and not get someone who's devoted their life to civil rights? There are a ton of community activists who could actually bring a fresh perspective.
EDIT: I do not mean to question his particular qualifications or his commitment to change, only to comment on the fact that it could have been someone from a different walk of life. Tech leadership in Silicon Valley does not appear inclined to affect change.
- whatshisface 6y agoPresumably the duties of a Silicon Valley board member would center on running a Silicon Valley company, which a Silicon Valley CEO would be uniquely qualified to do.
- alexbanks 6y agoWhich isn't great, because more of the same means more of the same.
- henryfjordan 6y agoThis is exactly my point. They brought someone in who presumably is going to see Monthly Active Users as the metric to live or die by when what the world needs from Reddit/Twitter/FB is a more social-good focus. It might be worth it to shed a few users and lose a few ad dollars to make positive change on their platforms but with a Silicon Valley CEO on the board that is unlikely to happen.
- godzillabrennus 6y agoLet me know when you figure out how to build a social network that can profit from social good. These days, profit and social good are rarely aligned.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- zaksoup 6y agoThis reads to me as a stunning indictment of social networks and profit more than it does a defense of Reddit's board choice and their potential motivations.
- bigiain 6y ago> This reads to me as a stunning indictment of social networks Or more generally, going back to the grandparent post here, this reads to me as a stunning indictment of Silicon Valley...
- esperent 6y agoIt's not one or the other. They already have the entire rest of the board focused on profit. All we're asking for is one person focused on social good.
- missosoup 6y agoWhat exactly is 'social good', in your mind?
- core-questions 6y agoSocial good is presently defined as "whatever the mob says it is at the moment". If that mob wants to hate on something, it must be virtuous to hate it. Just go look at the front page and see what I mean.
- dang 6y agoPlease stop taking HN threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dmix 6y agoMaking purely symbolic corporate gestures in response to popular social issues and banning everything that doesn’t fit the mold.
- esperent 6y agoIt's not that complicated. Start by working to deal with the platform being used to spread racism and hate speach and go from there.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoBoard members aren't really in a position to work on specific problems - their role is to set high-level priorities, and Reddit's already indicated fighting hate speech is a priority. If you want someone who's empowered to make specific concrete changes, that's not a board member.
- badwolf 6y agoThere's some glaringly obvious action they could take in a moment if they actually wanted to do something about fighting hate speech. They don't.
- flyinglizard 6y agoWhat is social good focus to you? If you mean “bring onboard the platform more of what’s currently going on outside”, then I can’t really imagine reddit going any further than they did, other than putting some kind of a conservative-busting CAPTCHA.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoBut I think having a designated social good person on the board would encourage the other members to stop thinking about social good on their own, in the same way that hiring a CFO means the CEO stops thinking so much about finances.
- screye 6y ago> lose a few ad dollars to make positive change Don't think there is a single company during the entire reign of capitalism that this has happened. Additionally, Reddit is owned by Advance Publications which is pretty much entirely the Newhouse billionaire family. Don't think we've every seen such as a thing as a compassionate old school billionaire. Their other major holding Condenast, is presently embroiled in accusations of racism/discrimination despite portraying themselves as 'allies'. By hiring Michael Seibel they do exactly what a profit driven company would do. Hire an incredibly competent person who espouses the same values (cut throat Silicon Valley ideology), has been molded by the same kind of people (Ivy league education), and serves as a great "UNO reverse' card for any accusation of the company unilaterally chasing money over ethics. If an activist was hired, they would steer the company into a direction that matches their lip service and not actual intentions. and I don't mean to say it is an evil thing to do or something. It is entirely in line with what almost every other company does. It is a perfectly capitalistic thing to do and will change nothing. As was the original intention.
- Apocryphon 6y agoWasn't Dick Costolo a standup comic?
- raxxorrax 6y agoThat doesn't really make their calls to diversity in any way believable.
- kortilla 6y agoDiversity in backgrounds, not diversity in skills. You don’t hire incompetent board members to check a box anymore than you hire programmers who can’t program to check a box.
- raxxorrax 6y agoI am not against his hiring, he seems like a really smart and successful guy. Hopefully he didn't get hired because he is black, because that doesn't really indicate a diverse background.
- rayiner 6y agoPresumably for the same reason you wouldn’t get a civil rights activist to replace the captain in a Navy boat. We need people fighting for civil rights, but we also need to create room for people from diverse backgrounds to do all of the rest of the work that needs doing.
- esperent 6y agoThey're not bringing in a new CEO. All people are asking for is _one_ outsider voice on the board.
- bradlys 6y ago> All people are asking for is _one_ outsider voice on the board. I'm curious what people think the end result of such a thing would be. Does having an outside voice actually contribute to better outcomes for the company? Is there a reason people couldn't just advocate for the current board to listen to other people in their time rather than having a dedicated "outside voice" position? I've seen outsiders come into companies before and fail miserably to accomplish anything because the culture is to not listen to an outsider. It seems like virtue signalling position to take (advocating for one outsider voice rather than systemic change). Who cares if you get a person who is an outsider on a board if it doesn't fundamentally change things. If you want fundamental change, you'll need to kick all those people out and/or shutdown the company. One person would be ignored. You know this is true because we all do this at work already. We've all encountered someone who is that "outside voice" in one way or another - they promptly get ignored in a discussion. "Here's Jim with his crazy ideas - again. :eyeroll:"
- dvtrn 6y agoYou know what? You’re right. Let’s call this what it is: pure virtue signaling. Now that that’s done, what’s next? How can we boost the signal? I like this particular virtue. I think it’s worthy and achievable and more people should be able to tune into it. Admittedly I’m biased as a person with a few differently complexities of melanin in my skin, that has been treated like an outsider in so many different ways, but hell if were signaling virtues let’s be upfront and own this shit and do some good with it. What’s to lose? The integrity of Reddit because they put a black man at the helm? Eh. Worth a shot in my opinion.
- sushid 6y agoReddit is first and foremost a business. Does that answer your question?
- bzb3 6y agoWhat the fuck do "civil rights" have to do with being a director at Reddit? Sorry but is this a bait message?
- lukifer 6y agoContext: the new board seat was recently opened after co-founder Alexis Ohanian stepped down, while recommending the board nominate a black replacement. https://alexisohanian.com/home/2020/6/5/what-did-you-do https://alexisohanian.com/home/2020/6/5/what-did-you-do
- austenallred 6y agoBecause the role of a board member is to help run a business
- djrobstep 6y agoSuggesting that you can fix ethical issues in a company by putting a civil rights expert on the board, is a bit like saying you can make a software company secure by putting a bouncer on the board! It doesn't make a lot of sense! These issue issues are structural, and run a lot deeper than board representation optics.
- quantummkv 6y ago> Why stick to the insular Silicon Valley club and not get someone who's devoted their life to civil rights? There are a ton of community activists who could actually bring a fresh perspective. They would. But the sad cold truth of the matter is that no one wants a fresh perspective. They just want to virtue signal the mob as much as they can to preempt the mob storm troopers before they get stoned and cancelled without affecting their business, which is why the pick is a Silicon Valley insider, someone they are sure knows what's best for business and won't try to destroy the business. > Tech leadership in Silicon Valley does not appear inclined to affect change. Exactly. Everyone wants change and revolution and mob violence as long as it is outside their gated community. No one, either the rich black NBA players or the Pirates of the Silicon Valley, want change and mobs in their gated community. They really like it as it is.
- CryptoPunk 6y agoWhy let the Civil Rights Establishment define what civil rights mean. Left-wing racial justice activists shouldn't be allowed to monopolize the term to mean the advancement of their vision for the world. In any case, what Ohanian asked for was that a black person take his place. Not that his replacement be prominent in so-called Civil Rights circles. An accomplished black tech entrepreneur as a board member does more for the reputation of black tech workers than a lifelong activist whose main occupation has been disseminating ideology.