5 ms·

This 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

This 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 ago
Let 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 ago
  This 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 ago
  It'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 ago
What exactly is 'social good', in your mind?
- core-questions 6y ago
  Social 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 ago
    Please stop taking HN threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dmix 6y ago
  Making purely symbolic corporate gestures in response to popular social issues and banning everything that doesn’t fit the mold.
- esperent 6y ago
  It'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 ago
    Board 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 ago
      There'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.
      - raxxorrax 6y ago
flyinglizard 6y ago
What 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 ago
But 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.

godzillabrennus 6y ago

Let 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 ago
This 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 ago
It'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 ago

What exactly is 'social good', in your mind?

core-questions 6y ago
Social 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 ago
  Please stop taking HN threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dmix 6y ago
Making purely symbolic corporate gestures in response to popular social issues and banning everything that doesn’t fit the mold.
esperent 6y ago
It'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 ago
  Board 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 ago
    There'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.
    - raxxorrax 6y ago

flyinglizard 6y ago

What 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 ago

But 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.