4 ms·

Followed some of the links shared here, I fully agree now that the CEO should go. Earlier, he compromised the integrity of people’s speech by editing their post

Followed some of the links shared here, I fully agree now that the CEO should go. Earlier, he compromised the integrity of people’s speech by editing their posts: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/reddit-edit-post https://www.wired.co.uk/article/reddit-edit-post

prmoustache 3y ago
Those that should go are the users really.
smcl 3y ago
I can see why they might want someone with the ability to edit posts (removing extreme TOS stuff - racism, hate speech etc). But that's probably not for the CEO and certainly shouldn't be used simply to "troll the trolls" Also it's baffling to me that the CEO of reddit is a regular user and somehow isn't up in arms about how irritating it is to use the site.
- kybernetikos 3y ago
  I'm not sure that's right. If your website is saying I said something I didn't say then that's an issue. Sure, have the ability to remove or annotate posts that break the rules in some way but to leave a post up saying something other than what the poster wrote seems bad (and possibly even libellous) to me.
  - smcl 3y ago
    Yeah there's definitely better ways to go, but regardless the main thing is the CEO has no business being anywhere near this kind of functionality.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  > (removing extreme TOS stuff - racism, hate speech etc) Why would you edit these? Deletion seems far superior, do you want people to go around editing out the racism of peoples posts? Seems absurd.
  - smcl 3y ago
    I'd personally hide or delete them. But I can see why someone might argue for this functionality, it's not totally absurd. What's absurd is a CEO editing posts to troll people
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Deletion seems far superior, do you want people to go around editing out the racism of peoples posts? The generous argument for would be it preserves any redeeming value in the offending comment. The practical answer is he (EDIT: spez) wanted something to rail against.
    - smcl 3y ago
      Can't really see how my comments suggest I'm "rail[ing] against" something
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > how my comments suggest I'm "rail[ing] against" something Sorry, clarified. Spez wanted something to attack.
        smcl 3y ago
        Ahhhh sure, no worries!
- blackluster117 3y ago
  How palpable would the irony be if he's an old.reddit.com guy?
  - colourgarden 3y ago
    Better than zero chance. He addressed it in the AMA thread last week. > P.S. old.reddit.com isn’t going anywhere

prmoustache 3y ago

Those that should go are the users really.

smcl 3y ago

I can see why they might want someone with the ability to edit posts (removing extreme TOS stuff - racism, hate speech etc). But that's probably not for the CEO and certainly shouldn't be used simply to "troll the trolls" Also it's baffling to me that the CEO of reddit is a regular user and somehow isn't up in arms about how irritating it is to use the site.

kybernetikos 3y ago
I'm not sure that's right. If your website is saying I said something I didn't say then that's an issue. Sure, have the ability to remove or annotate posts that break the rules in some way but to leave a post up saying something other than what the poster wrote seems bad (and possibly even libellous) to me.
- smcl 3y ago
  Yeah there's definitely better ways to go, but regardless the main thing is the CEO has no business being anywhere near this kind of functionality.
constantcrying 3y ago
> (removing extreme TOS stuff - racism, hate speech etc) Why would you edit these? Deletion seems far superior, do you want people to go around editing out the racism of peoples posts? Seems absurd.
- smcl 3y ago
  I'd personally hide or delete them. But I can see why someone might argue for this functionality, it's not totally absurd. What's absurd is a CEO editing posts to troll people
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Deletion seems far superior, do you want people to go around editing out the racism of peoples posts? The generous argument for would be it preserves any redeeming value in the offending comment. The practical answer is he (EDIT: spez) wanted something to rail against.
  - smcl 3y ago
    Can't really see how my comments suggest I'm "rail[ing] against" something
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > how my comments suggest I'm "rail[ing] against" something Sorry, clarified. Spez wanted something to attack.
      - smcl 3y ago
        Ahhhh sure, no worries!
blackluster117 3y ago
How palpable would the irony be if he's an old.reddit.com guy?
- colourgarden 3y ago
  Better than zero chance. He addressed it in the AMA thread last week. > P.S. old.reddit.com isn’t going anywhere