4 ms·

The CEO has responded to the criticism of how it was handled: https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensorship/comments/2ifd3p/udehrmann_i_am_a_former_reddit_employee

by pgrote 12y ago

The CEO has responded to the criticism of how it was handled: https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensorship/comments/2ifd3p/udehrmann_i_am_a_former_reddit_employee_ama_riama/cl25q4l https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensorship/comments/2ifd3p/ud... "Hiya. It was a harsh response, I agree (there's actually more, but we're pulling our punches, if you can believe it), and in fact all day yesterday I didn't want to post a reply, hoping his AMA wouldn't get too much traction or he wouldn't spout too many misconceptions and we could all just continue going our separate ways. Problem is, this was starting to really irritate a number of employees who'd worked with him, and he's the kind of guy who enjoys the attention he can get by saying "I used to be a reddit admin" even though he'll just post spurious stuff he doesn't know about, and left unchecked the positive attention encourages him to do it more. In running reddit, there's an interesting balance between the normal standards of professionalism (which we try very hard to uphold even when someone is being unreasonable) and the fact that we're a huge internet forum where a higher degree of openness is expected. I'm actually really focused on building competent, professional management precisely because the spotlight is always on us - and also because I've been at other Silicon Valley companies where that hasn't always been the case - but it also means that because of that spotlight, any tiny deviation can be hugely magnified."

supersystem 12y ago
What bothers me is that they couldn't give him a reason why he was fired out of respect, but had no problem doing so when it was out of spite. Firing someone, that is giving up cash to not sign your agreement, isn't "going our separate ways". And standards which doesn't apply when it matters aren't very good standards. All management no leadership it seems.
justin66 12y ago
> In running reddit, there's an interesting balance between the normal standards of professionalism (which we try very hard to uphold even when someone is being unreasonable) and the fact that we're a huge internet forum where a higher degree of openness is expected. Odd. I see no evidence in his comments that he's even slightly familiar with the "normal standards of professionalism" in a situation like this. I'm not being snotty: it would be interesting to know what he thinks he is balancing "openness" against.
danso 12y ago
Without knowing any of the sides here, all I can say for sure is that the ex-Reddit employee is showing a baffling amount of bad judgment here, even when benchmarked against other young-techie-implosions. Maybe he thought, "Oh no biggie, I can always delete this thread later and my real name isn't on it"...yes, until the thread explodes and now one of the many tech-news blogs jumps on it...the "no doxx allowed" rule doesn't exist outside of Reddit. And now your Google results will, for the rest of your life or until you invent the cure for cancer, have this dumb fiasco tied to your name. And for what? I would think a Reddit insider, of all people, would know how transient karma and internet fame is. Some employers are going to reject him because he now has a history of spectacularly ripping on his own company. But I have a negative opinion of him because at best, he's someone who shoots his mouth of when it's just not worth it, and at worst, he's a chronic attention seeker. Rebels are fun. But this isn't Jimmy McNulty complaining about unpunished murders in Baltimore. This is an engineer complaining about business strategy above his pay grade...even worse, he takes the side against the (purportedly unwise) do-gooders at Reddit, so he doesn't even young-headed idealism to blame. And this isn't even taking into account whether the CEO was speaking truth, in which case, if you were fired for alleged incompetence and you try to play it off publicly as if you were fired for taking a stand...that's just a whole different level of shortsighted stupidity. That said, the CEO should've taken a few deep breaths before posting what he did. Wrestling with a pig in mud and all...it's not his job to be part of the sideshow and I'm having a hard time imagining that employees feel satisfied about this resolution...other than the fun of water cooler gossip. edit: The worst part of the CEO's comment..."we're pulling our punches, if you can believe it"...no, I can't believe it, nor did I really care. But now you've shown that you'll play the stupid innuendo game, a rhetorical maneuver that has no upside to the company at all. Christ.
- grimtrigger 12y ago
  People who take the "moral high ground" always have to deal with the same criticism. Edward Snowden? Doing it for attention. Assange? Total attention whore At some level its true. People take principled stands in the hope that somebody pays attention. That doesn't mean their criticisms or opinions are invalid.
  - 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
j_baker 12y ago
This really sounds more like a simple personality clash to me. The funny thing is that had the CEO really just kept his mouth shut like he originally intended, the thing would probably have blown over. The employee wasn't really making any claims that could seriously harm an organization[1]. Instead, it's just a petty squabble over an issue the employee probably wouldn't have gotten much support from opposing anyway. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes-sexism-and-intimidation-behind-her-github-exit/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes...
7Figures2Commas 12y ago
> In running reddit, there's an interesting balance between the normal standards of professionalism... Professionalism? The CEO originally wrote: > When an employee is dismissed from employment at a company, the policy of almost every company (including reddit) is not to comment, either publicly or internally. This is because companies have no desire to ruin someone's future employment prospects by broadcasting to the world that they were fired. In return, the polite expectation is that the employee will not go shooting their mouth off about the company especially (as in your case) through irresponsibly unfounded speculation. Signing a non-disparagement indicates that you have no intention to do this, so the company can then say "Ok, if anyone comes asking for a reference on this guy, we needn't say he was fired, just give a mildly positive reference." The CEO is effectively stating that Reddit was willing to provide a "mildly positive reference" for an ex-employee the CEO now claims was totally incompetent and "did not even come close" to getting his work done. Further, he states that Reddit was willing to omit the fact that the ex-employee was terminated for cause (fired). This is horribly unprofessional and, in my opinion, completely dishonest. Based on the CEO's incredulous statement, I don't see how anybody can trust a reference from Reddit. Note that this is not common policy as the CEO implies. Non-disparagement clauses are typically negotiated for monetary compensation (severance pay), not for the promise of a dishonest reference. Companies don't comment on employee terminations because of the legal risks associated with doing so. In fact, one of the ways some companies address these risks is by adopting a no reference policy. They will simply verify employment and dates of employment when asked, and offer nothing more.
- demachina 12y ago
  Anyone who places any confidence in references from former employers is kidding themselves in the first place. Most employers wont give a negative reference on any employee, the liability risks are simply too high in our litigous age. Not sure why Reddit's CEO thought it was cool to put one on the Internet for the entire planet to see.
  - madeofpalk 12y ago
    Wow, I find that very interesting. Here in Australia employers won't hold back and will provide a negative reference if appropriate.

by pgrote 12y ago

supersystem 12y ago

What bothers me is that they couldn't give him a reason why he was fired out of respect, but had no problem doing so when it was out of spite. Firing someone, that is giving up cash to not sign your agreement, isn't "going our separate ways". And standards which doesn't apply when it matters aren't very good standards. All management no leadership it seems.

justin66 12y ago

> In running reddit, there's an interesting balance between the normal standards of professionalism (which we try very hard to uphold even when someone is being unreasonable) and the fact that we're a huge internet forum where a higher degree of openness is expected. Odd. I see no evidence in his comments that he's even slightly familiar with the "normal standards of professionalism" in a situation like this. I'm not being snotty: it would be interesting to know what he thinks he is balancing "openness" against.

danso 12y ago

Without knowing any of the sides here, all I can say for sure is that the ex-Reddit employee is showing a baffling amount of bad judgment here, even when benchmarked against other young-techie-implosions. Maybe he thought, "Oh no biggie, I can always delete this thread later and my real name isn't on it"...yes, until the thread explodes and now one of the many tech-news blogs jumps on it...the "no doxx allowed" rule doesn't exist outside of Reddit. And now your Google results will, for the rest of your life or until you invent the cure for cancer, have this dumb fiasco tied to your name. And for what? I would think a Reddit insider, of all people, would know how transient karma and internet fame is. Some employers are going to reject him because he now has a history of spectacularly ripping on his own company. But I have a negative opinion of him because at best, he's someone who shoots his mouth of when it's just not worth it, and at worst, he's a chronic attention seeker. Rebels are fun. But this isn't Jimmy McNulty complaining about unpunished murders in Baltimore. This is an engineer complaining about business strategy above his pay grade...even worse, he takes the side against the (purportedly unwise) do-gooders at Reddit, so he doesn't even young-headed idealism to blame. And this isn't even taking into account whether the CEO was speaking truth, in which case, if you were fired for alleged incompetence and you try to play it off publicly as if you were fired for taking a stand...that's just a whole different level of shortsighted stupidity. That said, the CEO should've taken a few deep breaths before posting what he did. Wrestling with a pig in mud and all...it's not his job to be part of the sideshow and I'm having a hard time imagining that employees feel satisfied about this resolution...other than the fun of water cooler gossip. edit: The worst part of the CEO's comment..."we're pulling our punches, if you can believe it"...no, I can't believe it, nor did I really care. But now you've shown that you'll play the stupid innuendo game, a rhetorical maneuver that has no upside to the company at all. Christ.

grimtrigger 12y ago
People who take the "moral high ground" always have to deal with the same criticism. Edward Snowden? Doing it for attention. Assange? Total attention whore At some level its true. People take principled stands in the hope that somebody pays attention. That doesn't mean their criticisms or opinions are invalid.
- 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

j_baker 12y ago

This really sounds more like a simple personality clash to me. The funny thing is that had the CEO really just kept his mouth shut like he originally intended, the thing would probably have blown over. The employee wasn't really making any claims that could seriously harm an organization[1]. Instead, it's just a petty squabble over an issue the employee probably wouldn't have gotten much support from opposing anyway. [1] http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes-sexism-and-intimidation-behind-her-github-exit/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describes...

7Figures2Commas 12y ago

> In running reddit, there's an interesting balance between the normal standards of professionalism... Professionalism? The CEO originally wrote: > When an employee is dismissed from employment at a company, the policy of almost every company (including reddit) is not to comment, either publicly or internally. This is because companies have no desire to ruin someone's future employment prospects by broadcasting to the world that they were fired. In return, the polite expectation is that the employee will not go shooting their mouth off about the company especially (as in your case) through irresponsibly unfounded speculation. Signing a non-disparagement indicates that you have no intention to do this, so the company can then say "Ok, if anyone comes asking for a reference on this guy, we needn't say he was fired, just give a mildly positive reference." The CEO is effectively stating that Reddit was willing to provide a "mildly positive reference" for an ex-employee the CEO now claims was totally incompetent and "did not even come close" to getting his work done. Further, he states that Reddit was willing to omit the fact that the ex-employee was terminated for cause (fired). This is horribly unprofessional and, in my opinion, completely dishonest. Based on the CEO's incredulous statement, I don't see how anybody can trust a reference from Reddit. Note that this is not common policy as the CEO implies. Non-disparagement clauses are typically negotiated for monetary compensation (severance pay), not for the promise of a dishonest reference. Companies don't comment on employee terminations because of the legal risks associated with doing so. In fact, one of the ways some companies address these risks is by adopting a no reference policy. They will simply verify employment and dates of employment when asked, and offer nothing more.

demachina 12y ago
Anyone who places any confidence in references from former employers is kidding themselves in the first place. Most employers wont give a negative reference on any employee, the liability risks are simply too high in our litigous age. Not sure why Reddit's CEO thought it was cool to put one on the Internet for the entire planet to see.
- madeofpalk 12y ago
  Wow, I find that very interesting. Here in Australia employers won't hold back and will provide a negative reference if appropriate.