10 ms·

Details Emerge About Victoria Taylor’s Dismissal at Reddit

116 points by warunsl 11y ago

midniteslayr 11y ago
Here is the permalink to the comment made: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/3d2hv3/kn0thing_says_he_was_responsible_for_the_change/ct1ecxv https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/3d2hv3/kn0t... I'm very curious to see if Alexis is responsible for the firing, then shouldn't the backlash against Ellen Pao change to be against Alexis Ohanian?
- xd1936 11y ago
  This was my main takeaway from the article. Ellen's changes to hate speech rules caused some backlash, but it sounds like she had nothing to do with Victoria's firing.
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    > Ellen's changes to hate speech rules caused some backlash What changes to "hate speech rules?" Reddit still allows hate speech. What they curtailed were subreddits who existed primarily to harass people both on and off the site (e.g. other Reddit users, YouTubers, game streamers, people with public Facebook profiles, random members of the public, the entire Imgur staff, several Reddit admins, you name it). That's why whenever this topic gets brought up people link to e.g. racist subreddits which still exist today, and then ask "well, why was XYZ banned, if those aren't?!" while entirely ignoring the fact that the banned subs were banned for HARASSMENT, not for having controversial opinions. Subs still exist with the same controversial opinions as those who got banned. The difference is that the mods in the ones which survived actively follow Reddit's rules and don't harass innocent people. The mods on the banned ones were actively involved in the harassment and frankly should have been banned.
    - xd1936 11y ago
      What changes to hate speech rules? These changes: https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/removing_harassing_subreddits/ https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/removi... I agree, they should have and should continue to be banned. It still caused controversy. Yes, their reasoning is that these subs have users that leave their cesspools and harass other people.
      - Someone1234 11y ago
        > What changes to hate speech rules? These changes You linked to a page titled: "Removing harassing subreddits" that talks about harassment and doesn't contain the term "hate speech." Can you clarify why you think this has anything to do with hate speech rather than harassment?
  - smacktoward 11y ago
    On the other hand, the CEO of a company should at least be vaguely aware of personnel changes that would affect strategic parts of their business. And AMAs are definitely strategic to Reddit. The question then becomes whether Pao didn't know about it because she wasn't paying attention to her business, or because Ohanian and/or other parties deliberately hid the information from her until after the proverbial stuff had hit the fan. I'd consider the latter a fireable offense, but YMMV.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      How do you know she didn't know about it? And what level of involvement do you expect a CEO to have in personnel decisions of random departments? You think Tim Cook hears about even 1% of the people Apple fires, or that Craig Federighi can't fire a senior manager directly below him on the org chart? From what's been said publicly by principals in the story, we know that Ohanian had taken the AMA section into his personal portfolio. By the way: that by itself is weird: the chairman doesn't usually have an operational role in the company, among other reasons because it's a conflict of interest. Regardless of who he was, he had ownership of the department Victoria Taylor worked in. In most well-managed companies, that makes hire/fire his prerogative, and coordination of personnel changes his responsibility. When people screw hire/fire up and cause disruption, the CEO normally fires or demotes them, and gets extra careful about future promotions and delegations to keep there from being a pattern of poor decisions about delegation. Here, neither thing was allowed to happen: Ohanian is effectively unfireable, and Pao wasn't given a chance to not delegate more stuff to him.
      - learc83 11y ago
        >You think Tim Cook hears about even 1% of the people Apple fires, or that Craig Federighi can't fire a senior manager directly below him on the org chart? I'm sure that she doesn't have to approve every dismissal, but there's a pretty big difference between Apple and Reddit. Last I heard Reddit only has a few dozen employees. I'd expect the CEO to know most of them by name.
        11y ago
- theseatoms 11y ago
  There's no way that the already-satiated angry mob about-faces like that. Though, I'd be impressed if it did.
- mason55 11y ago
  The backlash was centered around the lack of communication and heads up to the mod teams. We don't know if it was "she needs to be fired right now, immediately" or if it was "she is not a part of future plans". If it's the former then you can put the blame on Alexis but if Pao was not being pressured to fire her immediately then she could have in theory worked with the mod teams before letting Victoria go.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    Frankly, if the mod teams were this disrupted by a single employee's departure, that's at least partially their own fault. If she'd been hit by a bus or she'd had a personal/family emergency (hell, upcoming AMAs would've been potentially problematic even if her laptop just got stolen), they'd have been just as fucked - and no one to whine at. They failed miserably at disaster planning. They got very lucky they could shove the blame off on someone else.
    - learc83 11y ago
      They're unpaid volunteers, I don't know that anyone expects them to spend a lot of time on contingency planning.
      - ceejayoz 11y ago
        They cared enough to throw a giant temper tantrum, they could've cared enough to have a Google Doc with the contact info of upcoming AMA participants. I really don't have much sympathy for them on this one.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Ohanian himself said he was responsible for the firing! There's no "if" here.
- mason240 11y ago
  Alexis has kind of always been unpopular on the site.
  - efuquen 11y ago
    And yet he has never received the sort of backlash or vitriol that Pao has. I've always been up and down about how much gender and sexism has played a part in all this, outside that it a "small" minority of Reddit is influenced by it. But the idea that while not always popular but Alexis always seems to get a pass from the Reddit community (at least compared to how Pao was treated) is really telling.
- joshstrange 11y ago
  > I'm very curious to see if Alexis is responsible for the firing, then shouldn't the backlash against Ellen Pao change to be against Alexis Ohanian? Yes and no. Yes there should be outrage directed at him but the buck ultimately stops with the CEO and the firing was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. I have not doubt Alexis shares some of the blame but Pao had failed the moderators and the community at large in other ways and her leaving was probably best for Reddit.
  - gkoberger 11y ago
    Don't forget that Alexis is both above AND below Pao in the org chart. He's an employee, but also is the Chairman of the Board. EDIT: Sources that Alexis reported to Ellen Pao: From Alexis: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/3d2hv3/kn0thing_says_he_was_responsible_for_the_change/ct1fsoi https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/3d2hv3/kn0t... From u/kickme444 (previous employee; fired last month): https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/3d2hv3/kn0thing_says_he_was_responsible_for_the_change/ct1fbh4 https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/3d2hv3/kn0t...
    - efuquen 11y ago
      The Board is the CEO's boss, and he is the leader of the board, I think it's pretty straight forward. I guess I'm not sure of what you mean by he is also 'below' her on the org chart? Regardless of whatever responsibilities he held at Reddit that might be below the CEO that never changes the fact that he is Executive Chairman of the Board, which should completely clear up any ambiguity of authority. EDIT: Thanks for clearing up this those comment links. But, my original sentiment still stands in terms of the power dynamic being clear. Just because in some capacities he is under her doesn't diminish his ability to influence her firing/hiring. If anything being in that position could prompt him to take action as a board member because he didn't like decisions she made in his role working under her. And I think Alexis mentioning that is him trying to divert attention away from the real power he actually has.
- rodgerd 11y ago
  Alexis isn't a woman
jonlucc 11y ago
This is very similar to one of the reports swirling before. If true, it is pretty awful for Alexis to keep letting Ellen Pao take the hit for it. There are other reasons that people dislike Mrs. Pao, but she doesn't need this final straw if it is truly Alexis' straw to bear.
- trhway 11y ago
  well, letting any moron (even high placed/influential one) to fire your employees is a sign of really bad CEO. Not that i expected any different from Pao given her previous tenure at Kleiner. She seems to constantly search what a&& to kiss and constantly kisses the wrong one (because there can't be a right one :)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
exstudent2 11y ago
It is the nature of the role of CEO that you're going to take the heat for all company decisions. That's one of the justifications for their outsized compensation. Greater risk = greater reward. No one is forced to be CEO and being an executive essentially means you live your life on the line every day. It's not for everyone. There was another thread on this earlier today and I think my comment there is applicable here too... -- Yishan seems to love to do stuff like this. While I personally find it interesting, it also seems pretty unprofessional. Some issues with this particular comment: 1. Yishan no longer works at Reddit so I don't think he can be considered an authoritative source for what happened. 2. Yishan appointed Pao so isn't unbiased when discussing her. 3. The CEO's job is to represent the company. The chairman's job is to appoint the CEO. The outcome of events seems correct even if what Yishan says is true. reply
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  > It is the nature of the role of CEO that you're going to take the heat for all company decisions. That's one of the justifications for their outsized compensation. Greater risk = greater reward. No one is forced to be CEO and being an executive essentially means you live your life on the line every day. It's not for everyone. I rather doubt that Ellen Pao's job description included "Dive under the bus to cover up bad decisions of coworkers too cowardly to own them." Stop making excuses for assholes.
  - exstudent2 11y ago
    We don't actually know if that's what happened, this is based on a potentially disgruntled opinion of a former CEO. Secondly, "Dive under the bus to cover up bad decisions of coworkers too cowardly to own them." is almost the precise definition of what the CEO role is. You represent the whole company for better or worse. You are the face of the company.
    - Avenger42 11y ago
      Why wouldn't it be "fire employees whose bad decisions are reflecting badly on the company, even if those employees are also on the board of directors"?
okasaki 11y ago
Ehm. This was known since the beginning: https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3c0hcz/welcome_back/ https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3c0hcz/welcome_back/ > Chooter (Victoria) was let go as an admin by /u/kn0thing.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  Interesting. It's the first I've heard of it. IIRC, it was also known from the beginning that the r/ShitNiggersSay et al. were banned, not for being offensive, but for doxxing people in violation of Reddit's few explicit rules. Once the mob locks on target, inconvenient little details like that tend to vanish.
  - pavedwalden 11y ago
    It was known, but oddly not widely known. During the r/jailbait shutdown, Reddit was more successful in getting the word out about exactly where the line was drawn. This time around many users claimed that it was the beginning of a clean-up campaign instigated by Pao. I don't know if the administrators failed to get their message across or if they were simply out-shouted by the mob.
    - jonlucc 11y ago
      Well the only explanation provided in the FPH round is that they were being shut down for "behavior not ideas". That's more of a "trust us, we did this for the right reasons" to me.
      - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
        Literally the very next sentence after the words "behavior not ideas" was "Today we are removing five subreddits that break our reddit rules based on their harassment of individuals," later followed by "When we are using the word 'harass', we're not talking about 'being annoying' or vote manipulation or anything. We're talking about men and women whose lives are being affected and worry for their safety every day, because people from a certain community on reddit have decided to actually threaten them, online and off, every day." Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/removing_harassing_subreddits/ https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/remov... This is exactly what I was talking about. The truth is right there, up front and easy to access, but you'd rather uncritically believe the voice of the mob.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
So the Reddit mob was utterly wrong about Ellen Pao's complicity? And they had such a good track record up 'til now.
solve 11y ago
Just doesn't make sense. Sure, quickly eliminate someone's role, but why immediately fire the person? Why not even try to transition the person to a new role? Was she employed as an independent contractor? Reddit clearly has both plenty of money, and plenty of work to be done. This explanation doesn't add up at all.
- fuejduxhebd 11y ago
  Alexis Ohanian has long been a proponent of viral marketing and native advertising on reddit. It's a very common thing for companies and movie stars to do AMA's in order to promote whatever they're working on. I'm willing to bet Ohanian wanted to make AMA's of this sort pay to play if they already weren't, which led to some friction with Victoria. (Of course this is only a theory.) Here's him talking about marketing. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IyyIGg12QZw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IyyIGg12QZw
- imron 11y ago
  > but why immediately fire the person? Move fast. Break things? If so, they certainly achieved both objectives.
markbnj 11y ago
In what sort of corporate governance model does an executive chairman make an operational decision to fire a line employee?
- habitue 11y ago
  This is in direct violation of the Chain that Binds.
- tptacek 11y ago
  A weird one, which the chairman has also taken an operational role managing one of the most visible and important departments in the company: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9880953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9880953 http://blog.samaltman.com/a-new-team-at-reddit http://blog.samaltman.com/a-new-team-at-reddit
  - markbnj 11y ago
    You're right, that is weird. However, since he had operational responsibility for "community" it sounds like it was his call.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      He's the chairman of the board. A lot of things are his call. I'm just saying, that call made the CEO's job especially difficult. Keep that in mind if you're ever tempted to say "the buck stops with the Reddit CEO."
protomyth 11y ago
Reddit isn't Twitter or Facebook where a post on the wall is fine. Reddit is a discussion platform which requires a bigger time commitment. Having the goal to have celebrities / famous figures be part of the reddit community seems rather naive. Given the time commitment, it would seem that the pool of potential AmA's would dry up. Also, having Victoria do the leg work would seem familiar to celebrities who would view it as normal to have an event handler.
jewbacca 11y ago
Yishan Wong 2 days ago: > Here's one. > In 2006, reddit was sold to Conde Nast. It was soon obvious to many that the sale had been premature, the site was unmanaged and under-resourced under the old-media giant who simply didn't understand it and could never realize its full potential, so the founders and their allies in Y-Combinator (where reddit had been born) hatched an audacious plan to re-extract reddit from the clutches of the 100-year-old media conglomerate. > Together with Sam Altman, they recruited a young up-and-coming technology manager with social media credentials. Alexis, who was on the interview panel for the new reddit CEO, would reject all other candidates except this one. The manager was to insist as a condition of taking the job that Conde Nast would have to give up significant ownership of the company, first to employees by justifying the need for equity to be able to hire top talent, bringing in Silicon Valley insiders to help run the company. After continuing to grow the company, he would then further dilute Conde Nast's ownership by raising money from a syndicate of Silicon Valley investors led by Sam Altman, now the President of Y-Combinator itself, who in the process would take a seat on the board. > Once this was done, he and his team would manufacture a series of otherwise-improbable leadership crises, forcing the new board to scramble to find a new CEO, allowing Altman to use his position on the board to advocate for the re-introduction of the old founders, installing them on the board and as CEO, thus returning the company to their control and relegating Conde Nast to a position as minority shareholder. > JUST KIDDING. There's no way that could happen. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the_best_long_con_you_ever_pulled/cszjqg2 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the...
- amyjess 11y ago
  Yishan is almost terminally stupid. If this isn't a joke, he and a ton of other people are going to be sued into the ground for this. If it is a joke, then he and a ton of other people are going to be investigated and possibly sued anyway.
  - kordless 11y ago
    He's saying publicly that Ellen was framed, so yeah. It's probably not a joke. http://www.businessinsider.com/yishan-wong-says-alexis-ohanian-failed-ellen-pao-2015-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/yishan-wong-says-alexis-ohani...
techman9 11y ago
My suspicion is that Victoria was terminated for entirely legitimate reasons unrelated to the operation of /r/IAmA. She was a valuable employee and community member, and I don't believe the Reddit administration is foolish enough to remove her just because they wanted to modify (and possibly monetize) the format of AmAs. Much of the Reddit community frequently forgets that Reddit is a business (owned by a multinational media conglomerate, no less) that sometimes needs to make business decisions.
- mikhailt 11y ago
  I don't think the community forgot Reddit is a business, I think it's the other way. Reddit's management forgot that the community is a huge part of what makes Reddit successful and if you go against them, you're not going to have a fun time. That's why they kept bringing up the situations with mod tools, lack of communication, and so on.
  - techman9 11y ago
    The Reddit community is not the customer. They're the product. It's just like Facebook or Twitter or any other social media website. Think about the real, cold-blooded economics of it. Reddit can afford to piss off the community, because, even if a small number of people leave, there will still be plenty to view advertisements and the controversy and publicity may even drive more traffic. Sure, moderators can take subs dark and post long rants against the Reddit staff, but ultimately, most people WILL keep visiting the site. Reddit (the company, not the community) is NOT your friend and has no obligation to the community. Just like every other social media company out there, their fundamental goal is to make money, and serving the community isn't always aligned with that interest.
    - untog 11y ago
      Not really. Reddit users - the ones that view the advertising - are the product. The community mods are the ones that ensure there is content to make it worth coming to the site in the first place. Without that community people will stop coming to the site.
itsdrewmiller 11y ago
This is in the new york times? > The protest was the latest episode in nine months of tumult for Reddit, a highly popular internet message board which has more than 160 million monthly visitors. Under Ms. Pao’s leadership, many users of the site have been upset with what they have perceived as major challenges to free speech and a lack of censorship. In May, Reddit users revolted when the company instituted stricter guidelines against prohibiting harassment on the site.
- bpicolo 11y ago
  No, it's on a blog hosted on the NYT website
  - scott_karana 11y ago
    I think he was trying to point out the contradictory and incorrect sentence that got by whoever copyedits the blog.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  The first emphasized sentence makes sense (barely); the challenges are to both free speech and a lack of censorship. The wording sucks, but it could be worse. The second sentence, on the other hand, is plain nonsensical.
codingdave 11y ago
Why is an ex-employee (even if ex-CEO) being treated by the NYT as an authoritative source?
- revelation 11y ago
  I don't know, because this is the NYT and they will treat anyone as a source? Frequently granting them anonymity when their position neither deserves nor requires it?
gesman 11y ago
Would be nice to hear Victoria's story from Victoria. Regardless, I think with her reputation and respect - she'll likely be doing something even more exciting. She's wisely avoiding stirring muddy waters for now...
Zigurd 11y ago
At the time I pointed out https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9827489 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9827489 that it was Alexis Ohanian who fired Victoria Taylor and set off the "blackout." Ohanian seemed content to use Ellen Pao as a meatshield, whether she deserved it or not. Imagine that: A Silicon Valley soap opera with no heros.
tptacek 11y ago
Why would Reddit have had a hard time simply installing Ohanian or Huffman as the CEO? Why would they need covert machinations to put the founders back at the helm?
AndrewKemendo 11y ago
Notice also that this thread is now on the 5th page with 106 points at 9 hours at time of writing 12:59am EST 7/14. In comparison there are currently older posts with less points or comments on the HN front page. Obviously someone at YC/HN is driving this story down.
- throwaway47386 11y ago
  I was waiting for somebody else to notice this.
- thaumaturgy 11y ago
  You're not new here, so you probably already know this, but when HN users flag a story, the story gets demoted. A sufficient number of flags kills the story altogether. This is a very flaggable submission and that's probably what's happening.
  - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
    Great point about flags but why is this story "very flaggable?" I don't see anything that breaks the guidelines.
    - thaumaturgy 11y ago
      I can't speak for anyone else, but when on the rare occasion I do flag something, it isn't just to enforce site guidelines but also to keep HN's submission and discussion quality up. This is an article about Reddit drama and there have already been a number of recent submissions about that. There are only 30 positions on the front page and Reddit drama doesn't deserve one of them.
      - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
        I see it the opposite way. I don't think it's just "reddit drama" especially since reddit is a YC company and Sam Altman is on the board. Some of the revelations give some really interesting insight in how, what is considered a wildly successful web-startup, is (mis)-managed and some of the back-room dealings happen in the supposedly "meritocratic" valley. I think this is ripe for really interesting discussion actually - especially when it comes to how a massively public company that came out of such a technically oriented culture handles this much scrutiny.

116 points by warunsl 11y ago

Here is the permalink to the comment made: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/3d2hv3/kn0thing_says_he_was_responsible_for_the_change/ct1ecxv https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/3d2hv3/kn0t... I'm very curious to see if Alexis is responsible for the firing, then shouldn't the backlash against Ellen Pao change to be against Alexis Ohanian?

xd1936 11y ago
This was my main takeaway from the article. Ellen's changes to hate speech rules caused some backlash, but it sounds like she had nothing to do with Victoria's firing.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  > Ellen's changes to hate speech rules caused some backlash What changes to "hate speech rules?" Reddit still allows hate speech. What they curtailed were subreddits who existed primarily to harass people both on and off the site (e.g. other Reddit users, YouTubers, game streamers, people with public Facebook profiles, random members of the public, the entire Imgur staff, several Reddit admins, you name it). That's why whenever this topic gets brought up people link to e.g. racist subreddits which still exist today, and then ask "well, why was XYZ banned, if those aren't?!" while entirely ignoring the fact that the banned subs were banned for HARASSMENT, not for having controversial opinions. Subs still exist with the same controversial opinions as those who got banned. The difference is that the mods in the ones which survived actively follow Reddit's rules and don't harass innocent people. The mods on the banned ones were actively involved in the harassment and frankly should have been banned.
  - xd1936 11y ago
    What changes to hate speech rules? These changes: https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/removing_harassing_subreddits/ https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/removi... I agree, they should have and should continue to be banned. It still caused controversy. Yes, their reasoning is that these subs have users that leave their cesspools and harass other people.
    - Someone1234 11y ago
      > What changes to hate speech rules? These changes You linked to a page titled: "Removing harassing subreddits" that talks about harassment and doesn't contain the term "hate speech." Can you clarify why you think this has anything to do with hate speech rather than harassment?
- smacktoward 11y ago
  On the other hand, the CEO of a company should at least be vaguely aware of personnel changes that would affect strategic parts of their business. And AMAs are definitely strategic to Reddit. The question then becomes whether Pao didn't know about it because she wasn't paying attention to her business, or because Ohanian and/or other parties deliberately hid the information from her until after the proverbial stuff had hit the fan. I'd consider the latter a fireable offense, but YMMV.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    How do you know she didn't know about it? And what level of involvement do you expect a CEO to have in personnel decisions of random departments? You think Tim Cook hears about even 1% of the people Apple fires, or that Craig Federighi can't fire a senior manager directly below him on the org chart? From what's been said publicly by principals in the story, we know that Ohanian had taken the AMA section into his personal portfolio. By the way: that by itself is weird: the chairman doesn't usually have an operational role in the company, among other reasons because it's a conflict of interest. Regardless of who he was, he had ownership of the department Victoria Taylor worked in. In most well-managed companies, that makes hire/fire his prerogative, and coordination of personnel changes his responsibility. When people screw hire/fire up and cause disruption, the CEO normally fires or demotes them, and gets extra careful about future promotions and delegations to keep there from being a pattern of poor decisions about delegation. Here, neither thing was allowed to happen: Ohanian is effectively unfireable, and Pao wasn't given a chance to not delegate more stuff to him.
    - learc83 11y ago
      >You think Tim Cook hears about even 1% of the people Apple fires, or that Craig Federighi can't fire a senior manager directly below him on the org chart? I'm sure that she doesn't have to approve every dismissal, but there's a pretty big difference between Apple and Reddit. Last I heard Reddit only has a few dozen employees. I'd expect the CEO to know most of them by name.
      - 11y ago
theseatoms 11y ago
There's no way that the already-satiated angry mob about-faces like that. Though, I'd be impressed if it did.
mason55 11y ago
The backlash was centered around the lack of communication and heads up to the mod teams. We don't know if it was "she needs to be fired right now, immediately" or if it was "she is not a part of future plans". If it's the former then you can put the blame on Alexis but if Pao was not being pressured to fire her immediately then she could have in theory worked with the mod teams before letting Victoria go.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  Frankly, if the mod teams were this disrupted by a single employee's departure, that's at least partially their own fault. If she'd been hit by a bus or she'd had a personal/family emergency (hell, upcoming AMAs would've been potentially problematic even if her laptop just got stolen), they'd have been just as fucked - and no one to whine at. They failed miserably at disaster planning. They got very lucky they could shove the blame off on someone else.
  - learc83 11y ago
    They're unpaid volunteers, I don't know that anyone expects them to spend a lot of time on contingency planning.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      They cared enough to throw a giant temper tantrum, they could've cared enough to have a Google Doc with the contact info of upcoming AMA participants. I really don't have much sympathy for them on this one.
tptacek 11y ago
Ohanian himself said he was responsible for the firing! There's no "if" here.
mason240 11y ago
Alexis has kind of always been unpopular on the site.
- efuquen 11y ago
  And yet he has never received the sort of backlash or vitriol that Pao has. I've always been up and down about how much gender and sexism has played a part in all this, outside that it a "small" minority of Reddit is influenced by it. But the idea that while not always popular but Alexis always seems to get a pass from the Reddit community (at least compared to how Pao was treated) is really telling.
joshstrange 11y ago
> I'm very curious to see if Alexis is responsible for the firing, then shouldn't the backlash against Ellen Pao change to be against Alexis Ohanian? Yes and no. Yes there should be outrage directed at him but the buck ultimately stops with the CEO and the firing was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. I have not doubt Alexis shares some of the blame but Pao had failed the moderators and the community at large in other ways and her leaving was probably best for Reddit.
- gkoberger 11y ago
  Don't forget that Alexis is both above AND below Pao in the org chart. He's an employee, but also is the Chairman of the Board. EDIT: Sources that Alexis reported to Ellen Pao: From Alexis: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/3d2hv3/kn0thing_says_he_was_responsible_for_the_change/ct1fsoi https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/3d2hv3/kn0t... From u/kickme444 (previous employee; fired last month): https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/3d2hv3/kn0thing_says_he_was_responsible_for_the_change/ct1fbh4 https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/3d2hv3/kn0t...
  - efuquen 11y ago
    The Board is the CEO's boss, and he is the leader of the board, I think it's pretty straight forward. I guess I'm not sure of what you mean by he is also 'below' her on the org chart? Regardless of whatever responsibilities he held at Reddit that might be below the CEO that never changes the fact that he is Executive Chairman of the Board, which should completely clear up any ambiguity of authority. EDIT: Thanks for clearing up this those comment links. But, my original sentiment still stands in terms of the power dynamic being clear. Just because in some capacities he is under her doesn't diminish his ability to influence her firing/hiring. If anything being in that position could prompt him to take action as a board member because he didn't like decisions she made in his role working under her. And I think Alexis mentioning that is him trying to divert attention away from the real power he actually has.
rodgerd 11y ago
Alexis isn't a woman

jonlucc 11y ago

This is very similar to one of the reports swirling before. If true, it is pretty awful for Alexis to keep letting Ellen Pao take the hit for it. There are other reasons that people dislike Mrs. Pao, but she doesn't need this final straw if it is truly Alexis' straw to bear.

trhway 11y ago
well, letting any moron (even high placed/influential one) to fire your employees is a sign of really bad CEO. Not that i expected any different from Pao given her previous tenure at Kleiner. She seems to constantly search what a&& to kiss and constantly kisses the wrong one (because there can't be a right one :)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

exstudent2 11y ago

It is the nature of the role of CEO that you're going to take the heat for all company decisions. That's one of the justifications for their outsized compensation. Greater risk = greater reward. No one is forced to be CEO and being an executive essentially means you live your life on the line every day. It's not for everyone. There was another thread on this earlier today and I think my comment there is applicable here too... -- Yishan seems to love to do stuff like this. While I personally find it interesting, it also seems pretty unprofessional. Some issues with this particular comment: 1. Yishan no longer works at Reddit so I don't think he can be considered an authoritative source for what happened. 2. Yishan appointed Pao so isn't unbiased when discussing her. 3. The CEO's job is to represent the company. The chairman's job is to appoint the CEO. The outcome of events seems correct even if what Yishan says is true. reply

PhasmaFelis 11y ago
> It is the nature of the role of CEO that you're going to take the heat for all company decisions. That's one of the justifications for their outsized compensation. Greater risk = greater reward. No one is forced to be CEO and being an executive essentially means you live your life on the line every day. It's not for everyone. I rather doubt that Ellen Pao's job description included "Dive under the bus to cover up bad decisions of coworkers too cowardly to own them." Stop making excuses for assholes.
- exstudent2 11y ago
  We don't actually know if that's what happened, this is based on a potentially disgruntled opinion of a former CEO. Secondly, "Dive under the bus to cover up bad decisions of coworkers too cowardly to own them." is almost the precise definition of what the CEO role is. You represent the whole company for better or worse. You are the face of the company.
  - Avenger42 11y ago
    Why wouldn't it be "fire employees whose bad decisions are reflecting badly on the company, even if those employees are also on the board of directors"?

okasaki 11y ago

Ehm. This was known since the beginning: https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3c0hcz/welcome_back/ https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3c0hcz/welcome_back/ > Chooter (Victoria) was let go as an admin by /u/kn0thing.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago
Interesting. It's the first I've heard of it. IIRC, it was also known from the beginning that the r/ShitNiggersSay et al. were banned, not for being offensive, but for doxxing people in violation of Reddit's few explicit rules. Once the mob locks on target, inconvenient little details like that tend to vanish.
- pavedwalden 11y ago
  It was known, but oddly not widely known. During the r/jailbait shutdown, Reddit was more successful in getting the word out about exactly where the line was drawn. This time around many users claimed that it was the beginning of a clean-up campaign instigated by Pao. I don't know if the administrators failed to get their message across or if they were simply out-shouted by the mob.
  - jonlucc 11y ago
    Well the only explanation provided in the FPH round is that they were being shut down for "behavior not ideas". That's more of a "trust us, we did this for the right reasons" to me.
    - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
      Literally the very next sentence after the words "behavior not ideas" was "Today we are removing five subreddits that break our reddit rules based on their harassment of individuals," later followed by "When we are using the word 'harass', we're not talking about 'being annoying' or vote manipulation or anything. We're talking about men and women whose lives are being affected and worry for their safety every day, because people from a certain community on reddit have decided to actually threaten them, online and off, every day." Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/removing_harassing_subreddits/ https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/remov... This is exactly what I was talking about. The truth is right there, up front and easy to access, but you'd rather uncritically believe the voice of the mob.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

So the Reddit mob was utterly wrong about Ellen Pao's complicity? And they had such a good track record up 'til now.

solve 11y ago

Just doesn't make sense. Sure, quickly eliminate someone's role, but why immediately fire the person? Why not even try to transition the person to a new role? Was she employed as an independent contractor? Reddit clearly has both plenty of money, and plenty of work to be done. This explanation doesn't add up at all.

fuejduxhebd 11y ago
Alexis Ohanian has long been a proponent of viral marketing and native advertising on reddit. It's a very common thing for companies and movie stars to do AMA's in order to promote whatever they're working on. I'm willing to bet Ohanian wanted to make AMA's of this sort pay to play if they already weren't, which led to some friction with Victoria. (Of course this is only a theory.) Here's him talking about marketing. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IyyIGg12QZw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IyyIGg12QZw
imron 11y ago
> but why immediately fire the person? Move fast. Break things? If so, they certainly achieved both objectives.

markbnj 11y ago

In what sort of corporate governance model does an executive chairman make an operational decision to fire a line employee?

habitue 11y ago
This is in direct violation of the Chain that Binds.
tptacek 11y ago
A weird one, which the chairman has also taken an operational role managing one of the most visible and important departments in the company: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9880953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9880953 http://blog.samaltman.com/a-new-team-at-reddit http://blog.samaltman.com/a-new-team-at-reddit
- markbnj 11y ago
  You're right, that is weird. However, since he had operational responsibility for "community" it sounds like it was his call.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    He's the chairman of the board. A lot of things are his call. I'm just saying, that call made the CEO's job especially difficult. Keep that in mind if you're ever tempted to say "the buck stops with the Reddit CEO."

protomyth 11y ago

Reddit isn't Twitter or Facebook where a post on the wall is fine. Reddit is a discussion platform which requires a bigger time commitment. Having the goal to have celebrities / famous figures be part of the reddit community seems rather naive. Given the time commitment, it would seem that the pool of potential AmA's would dry up. Also, having Victoria do the leg work would seem familiar to celebrities who would view it as normal to have an event handler.

jewbacca 11y ago

Yishan Wong 2 days ago: > Here's one. > In 2006, reddit was sold to Conde Nast. It was soon obvious to many that the sale had been premature, the site was unmanaged and under-resourced under the old-media giant who simply didn't understand it and could never realize its full potential, so the founders and their allies in Y-Combinator (where reddit had been born) hatched an audacious plan to re-extract reddit from the clutches of the 100-year-old media conglomerate. > Together with Sam Altman, they recruited a young up-and-coming technology manager with social media credentials. Alexis, who was on the interview panel for the new reddit CEO, would reject all other candidates except this one. The manager was to insist as a condition of taking the job that Conde Nast would have to give up significant ownership of the company, first to employees by justifying the need for equity to be able to hire top talent, bringing in Silicon Valley insiders to help run the company. After continuing to grow the company, he would then further dilute Conde Nast's ownership by raising money from a syndicate of Silicon Valley investors led by Sam Altman, now the President of Y-Combinator itself, who in the process would take a seat on the board. > Once this was done, he and his team would manufacture a series of otherwise-improbable leadership crises, forcing the new board to scramble to find a new CEO, allowing Altman to use his position on the board to advocate for the re-introduction of the old founders, installing them on the board and as CEO, thus returning the company to their control and relegating Conde Nast to a position as minority shareholder. > JUST KIDDING. There's no way that could happen. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the_best_long_con_you_ever_pulled/cszjqg2 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the...

amyjess 11y ago
Yishan is almost terminally stupid. If this isn't a joke, he and a ton of other people are going to be sued into the ground for this. If it is a joke, then he and a ton of other people are going to be investigated and possibly sued anyway.
- kordless 11y ago
  He's saying publicly that Ellen was framed, so yeah. It's probably not a joke. http://www.businessinsider.com/yishan-wong-says-alexis-ohanian-failed-ellen-pao-2015-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/yishan-wong-says-alexis-ohani...

techman9 11y ago

My suspicion is that Victoria was terminated for entirely legitimate reasons unrelated to the operation of /r/IAmA. She was a valuable employee and community member, and I don't believe the Reddit administration is foolish enough to remove her just because they wanted to modify (and possibly monetize) the format of AmAs. Much of the Reddit community frequently forgets that Reddit is a business (owned by a multinational media conglomerate, no less) that sometimes needs to make business decisions.

mikhailt 11y ago
I don't think the community forgot Reddit is a business, I think it's the other way. Reddit's management forgot that the community is a huge part of what makes Reddit successful and if you go against them, you're not going to have a fun time. That's why they kept bringing up the situations with mod tools, lack of communication, and so on.
- techman9 11y ago
  The Reddit community is not the customer. They're the product. It's just like Facebook or Twitter or any other social media website. Think about the real, cold-blooded economics of it. Reddit can afford to piss off the community, because, even if a small number of people leave, there will still be plenty to view advertisements and the controversy and publicity may even drive more traffic. Sure, moderators can take subs dark and post long rants against the Reddit staff, but ultimately, most people WILL keep visiting the site. Reddit (the company, not the community) is NOT your friend and has no obligation to the community. Just like every other social media company out there, their fundamental goal is to make money, and serving the community isn't always aligned with that interest.
  - untog 11y ago
    Not really. Reddit users - the ones that view the advertising - are the product. The community mods are the ones that ensure there is content to make it worth coming to the site in the first place. Without that community people will stop coming to the site.

itsdrewmiller 11y ago

This is in the new york times? > The protest was the latest episode in nine months of tumult for Reddit, a highly popular internet message board which has more than 160 million monthly visitors. Under Ms. Pao’s leadership, many users of the site have been upset with what they have perceived as major challenges to free speech and a lack of censorship. In May, Reddit users revolted when the company instituted stricter guidelines against prohibiting harassment on the site.

bpicolo 11y ago
No, it's on a blog hosted on the NYT website
- scott_karana 11y ago
  I think he was trying to point out the contradictory and incorrect sentence that got by whoever copyedits the blog.
yellowapple 11y ago
The first emphasized sentence makes sense (barely); the challenges are to both free speech and a lack of censorship. The wording sucks, but it could be worse. The second sentence, on the other hand, is plain nonsensical.

codingdave 11y ago

Why is an ex-employee (even if ex-CEO) being treated by the NYT as an authoritative source?

revelation 11y ago
I don't know, because this is the NYT and they will treat anyone as a source? Frequently granting them anonymity when their position neither deserves nor requires it?

gesman 11y ago

Would be nice to hear Victoria's story from Victoria. Regardless, I think with her reputation and respect - she'll likely be doing something even more exciting. She's wisely avoiding stirring muddy waters for now...

Zigurd 11y ago

At the time I pointed out https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9827489 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9827489 that it was Alexis Ohanian who fired Victoria Taylor and set off the "blackout." Ohanian seemed content to use Ellen Pao as a meatshield, whether she deserved it or not. Imagine that: A Silicon Valley soap opera with no heros.

tptacek 11y ago

Why would Reddit have had a hard time simply installing Ohanian or Huffman as the CEO? Why would they need covert machinations to put the founders back at the helm?

AndrewKemendo 11y ago

Notice also that this thread is now on the 5th page with 106 points at 9 hours at time of writing 12:59am EST 7/14. In comparison there are currently older posts with less points or comments on the HN front page. Obviously someone at YC/HN is driving this story down.

throwaway47386 11y ago
I was waiting for somebody else to notice this.
thaumaturgy 11y ago
You're not new here, so you probably already know this, but when HN users flag a story, the story gets demoted. A sufficient number of flags kills the story altogether. This is a very flaggable submission and that's probably what's happening.
- AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  Great point about flags but why is this story "very flaggable?" I don't see anything that breaks the guidelines.
  - thaumaturgy 11y ago
    I can't speak for anyone else, but when on the rare occasion I do flag something, it isn't just to enforce site guidelines but also to keep HN's submission and discussion quality up. This is an article about Reddit drama and there have already been a number of recent submissions about that. There are only 30 positions on the front page and Reddit drama doesn't deserve one of them.
    - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
      I see it the opposite way. I don't think it's just "reddit drama" especially since reddit is a YC company and Sam Altman is on the board. Some of the revelations give some really interesting insight in how, what is considered a wildly successful web-startup, is (mis)-managed and some of the back-room dealings happen in the supposedly "meritocratic" valley. I think this is ripe for really interesting discussion actually - especially when it comes to how a massively public company that came out of such a technically oriented culture handles this much scrutiny.