4 ms·

You left out some context: he did that in a (failed) attempt at lulz. It was a long thread where (IMHO) he was fielding tough questions pretty frankly and hone

You left out some context: he did that in a (failed) attempt at lulz. It was a long thread where (IMHO) he was fielding tough questions pretty frankly and honestly, as one might hope he would, but he ruined it by editing someone's post to troll them. In context, it was obvious that he did it, he wasn't trying to be sneaky. I'm not justifying it; obviously it was dumb, given that people are still using it to denigrate him years later. But the implication that this means he is more likely to have edited other peoples' posts surreptitiously is (again IMHO) not true.

zikzak 6y ago
Not defending him but it was very clear after this that admins were willing and able to do this. That's good to know, at least.
SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
> this means he is more likely to have edited other peoples' posts surreptitiously is (again IMHO) not true. In what way can you support this claim? We’re you provided any indication or proof that this is the first this has happened? Or is the first time they were caught?
- ineptech 6y ago
  IMHO means "in my humble opinion". The reason I hold that opinion is that when someone is using their power surreptitiously, they generally don't call attention to it. More subjectively, none of us can know for certain, but this line of reasoning just isn't supported by an honest reading of the thread in question. The Reddit leadership was in between a rock ("this sub is full of white supremacists and if you don't ban them you're racist!") and a hard place ("we're being persecuted for being conservative and white and if you ban us you're racist!"). Spez isn't perfect, but he seemed to be at least trying to engage honestly and field questions about what he had done and why. After many hours of arguing with people (and, it goes without saying, taking a fair amount of insults and abuse) he did this thing where he edited some posts in a way that seemed pretty clearly to be an attempt to blow off steam. Now, was that wise? Clearly not, and I'm not defending it. But neither is it defensible to selectively pluck the fact that he edited some posts out of its context and use it to push the idea that Reddit leadership is in the habit of editing peoples' posts surreptitiously to push a viewpoint. AFAIK that's never happened, and I feel like Reddit is under enough of a microscope that we'd know if it had.
tobasq 6y ago
I can't imagine Twitter/Facebook/etc. actually changing what a user wrote, in any context. This does reveal something about Reddit and I would be less surprised to learn they are editing other posts.
- notahacker 6y ago
  On the flip side, administrators can and do directly edit user posts on a lot of web forums I've used, some of which make it more obvious than others. I think the Facebook/Twitter position is the more unusual one, and it's tied up with those platforms' obsessions with real names and verified identities...

zikzak 6y ago

Not defending him but it was very clear after this that admins were willing and able to do this. That's good to know, at least.

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago

> this means he is more likely to have edited other peoples' posts surreptitiously is (again IMHO) not true. In what way can you support this claim? We’re you provided any indication or proof that this is the first this has happened? Or is the first time they were caught?

ineptech 6y ago
IMHO means "in my humble opinion". The reason I hold that opinion is that when someone is using their power surreptitiously, they generally don't call attention to it. More subjectively, none of us can know for certain, but this line of reasoning just isn't supported by an honest reading of the thread in question. The Reddit leadership was in between a rock ("this sub is full of white supremacists and if you don't ban them you're racist!") and a hard place ("we're being persecuted for being conservative and white and if you ban us you're racist!"). Spez isn't perfect, but he seemed to be at least trying to engage honestly and field questions about what he had done and why. After many hours of arguing with people (and, it goes without saying, taking a fair amount of insults and abuse) he did this thing where he edited some posts in a way that seemed pretty clearly to be an attempt to blow off steam. Now, was that wise? Clearly not, and I'm not defending it. But neither is it defensible to selectively pluck the fact that he edited some posts out of its context and use it to push the idea that Reddit leadership is in the habit of editing peoples' posts surreptitiously to push a viewpoint. AFAIK that's never happened, and I feel like Reddit is under enough of a microscope that we'd know if it had.

tobasq 6y ago

I can't imagine Twitter/Facebook/etc. actually changing what a user wrote, in any context. This does reveal something about Reddit and I would be less surprised to learn they are editing other posts.

notahacker 6y ago
On the flip side, administrators can and do directly edit user posts on a lot of web forums I've used, some of which make it more obvious than others. I think the Facebook/Twitter position is the more unusual one, and it's tied up with those platforms' obsessions with real names and verified identities...