Reddit CEO Steve Huffman: I Screwed Up and I Want Reddit To Trust Me Again (cnbc.com) 410
The most anxious day of Reddit CEO Steve Huffman's life, he says, was showing up to work on the Monday after Thanksgiving this year. The week before, he had thrown the company into a minor political crisis. From a CNBC report: After weeks being antagonized by the users of Reddit communities like /r/The_Donald and /r/pizzagate, Huffman had covertly edited messages posted by other users that were critical of him, to instead be critical of those communities' leaders. On the latest episode of Recode Decode, hosted by Kara Swisher, Huffman said he conceived this as a prank, "in the spirit of fun." "I figured, I'm just going to mess with these bullies, and I actually have the capability of messing with them, so I'll do so," Huffman said. "I wanted to do something. I didn't do the right thing, but that was my mentality." Huffman says the aftermath of this "prank," users questioning whether their posts had ever been edited without their consent in the past, was "devastating," and that he knows it will take time to rebuild trust within the community. At an all-hands staff meeting on that anxious Monday, he apologized directly to Reddit's staff and said he wanted them all to be proud to work there.
Only Fixed by Resigning (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no coming back from this. Until he decides to leave, trust cannot be rebuilt.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If making relatively minor edits to a few inconsequential posts insulting him, then admitting it and repeatedly apologising and swearing he will never do it again isn't enough, then maybe it's not worth trying to regain the trust of people who feel that way.
It's the standard Reddit conspiracy theory. Something minor blow out of all proportion. Just like the last several times it's a sure sign that Reddit is dead and everyone is busy signing up for Voat.
Re:Only Fixed by Resigning (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not minor if you have to wonder with every post if it's going to be altered or hidden or deleted, you'd just take your time elsewhere. E.g. if it were happening here, I wouldn't bother posting.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know it's not happening here?
It came to light pretty fast on Reddit. I'm sure it would come to light pretty fast here too. What makes you so sure that /. posts are not edited, while you "have to wonder" over on Reddit?
Re:Only Fixed by Resigning (Score:5, Interesting)
If we're lucky, this will kick off a wave of forum sites coming up with clever hash systems allowing you to confirm that the message you posted on a forum has not been altered. And the best of these systems could trickle down into a way to confirm that a ballot you cast on an electronic voting machine has not been tampered with.
Re:Only Fixed by Resigning (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no point in pushing for an electronic voting machine when optical machines are superior, because they leave a paper trail. Granted higher costs in managing paper ballots are unavoidable, but I prefer that to an electronically rigged election.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't but I have no reason to suspect, yet. Redditers clearly do. It's that doubt that kills the motivation. If we ever get a proof that it happens here, I'll probably never post again.
Re:Only Fixed by Resigning (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not minor if you have to wonder with every post if it's going to be altered or hidden or deleted, you'd just take your time elsewhere. E.g. if it were happening here, I wouldn't bother posting.
It's not even that. The worst thing is that you cannot trust that anything you see someone saying, was actually said by him/her.
That's a much, much more grave issue than having your post hidden or deleted.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You are a fool, or a clever public media spin doctor. No one thinks /u/spez is going to modify their posts. But they are totally aware that government or corporate psy ops departments are capable of modifying or burying their posted speech, in order to manipulate a public consensus. That's why no one believes a corporate product forum when its known they delete negative statements against a product or the company. Tough luck reddit shareholders.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"every post"?
You and I are not that special, dude.
Hey, I remember that one. That's what people used to say when us "conspiracy theorists" said the NSA was spying on every American citizen.
Re: (Score:3)
Just curious, why do you think so many gummint officials want Snowden dead since only "conspiracy theorists" believe the NSA actually spies on every American citizen?
Re: (Score:3)
What? If anything the paranoia is spreading. Apparently you haven't seen all the left-leaning conspiritard bullshit everywhere. You know, "Donald Trump is going to put Muslims into internment camps", "Donald Trump is basically Hitler", "Donald Trump is a Russian agent", etc, etc.
The left likes to scoff at the uneducated idiots on the right with their fake news and conspiracy theories, but a growing number of the "educated liberal elite" are succumbing to the same paranoid thinking as the rednecks they lo
Re: (Score:2)
Neither were the people who had their posts edited, they were just your basic /r/the_donald "cuck-a-doodle-doo" shitposters.
Re:Only Fixed by Resigning (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't really the editing of a few posts, the problem is the fact that he can, unilaterally, go in and edit other people's posts. It is only a conspiracy theory until it is proven true. The fact that he did this shows that not only could it be done, but it was done, thus, no longer a conspiracy theory, it is proven fact. The motivation and trying to play it off as a joke because he got caught are also telling. The fact that he thought he could do this makes it likely that it was done in the past, but that he/they got away with it. It would be easy to destroy a person's online reputation in this manner. It is the online equivalent of identity theft.
At a minimum, to restore trust, they need to implement a policy where posts cannot and will not ever be edited by anyone other than the author, and any employee who does will be immediately terminated, regardless of rank. Also implement some software that only allows employees to delete posts, not edit them. Add a method for the software to verify that the post is being edited by the true user and not an employee and if an employee attempts an edit of a post, the original author gets an automated email as well as the entire company describing the infraction along with date, time, ip, user login, original and modified post, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Read how to discredit your rivals. Use "conspiracy" (as in "vast right-wing conspiracy") to explain why what you said/did wasn't what you said/did. Alternatively, when others use "conspiracy" against you (regardless of your involvement in said conspiracy) point out of fucking stupid it is to follow with "those crazy people".
You can apply this to just about every conspiracy theory out there, if you want to believe ... THERE IS A CONSPIRACY!!!, if you don't its ... THOSE CRAZY PEOPLE.
Really convenient once yo
It's easier if you know there are 3 sets of leaks (Score:5, Informative)
The Russian hacker thing is especially bad because I've seen how many people can't comprehend that there are no less than 3 different leaks in play here. Or especially they conflate Hillary's private email server with the DNC leaks. Yes, there probably are some emails common to all the dumps--Podesta certainly emailed Hillary & the DNC and vice versa--but they could not have been obtained all in the same way, as we will see below:
Hillary's emails
Allegedly hacked from her home server, but we have no logs of this. She turned over paper copies. Some redacted emails (on paper) were released by the FBI. This has never been fully turned over to the public (or to the people investigating Benghazi). Trump joked that Russia (or whoever) could always release these after the fact, but nobody ever has released them all, including Hillary herself. We have posts by /u/stonetear on Reddit, who was a staffer there, talking about selectively wiping emails in the right time frame. All of this is public evidence that has been seen (and archived) by many people, unless someone wants to claim that /u/Spez edited that in to make Hillary look bad :)
Podesta's Gmail account
This was hacked by a very simply spear phishing email [wikileaks.org]. It's DKIM validated by both Hillary & Google's servers, so anyone claiming this is fake can be proven wrong mathematically. Google signs them with the b and bh parameters (body & body hash) so no, it doesn't just cover the headers, but the body too. And no, there is a way to revoke the keys. Go look up the selector in the DKIM header if you know how, both keys are still there as of right now.
We also have good reason to believe they fell for this, both because we can see the staff saying this is real and because bit.ly has that link being clicked on twice in the relevant time frame as you can see from their stats page for the link: https://bitly.com/1PibSU0+ [bitly.com]
That bit.ly link resolves to a .TK URL the lameness filter hates which is obviously fake. You can see it from the previous stats page if you're curious. The TK domain is Tokelau, which a territory of New Zealand, if you were wondering. The phishing email itself claims there were hack attempts from the Ukraine.
DNC Leaks
This is alleged to have been leaked by a DNC insider. Wikileaks pointed out the suspicious death of DNC intern Seth Rich who was murdered but not robbed in the middle of the night. They have put up a reward for information on his killer(s). At this time, no one has been identified as the leaker, though there are a lot of stories quoting anonymous insiders claiming circumstantial evidence. There was also the 17 agencies of the USIC (i.e., the Coast Guard & co.) whose director put out a statement saying this was exactly the kind of thing Russia might do, but they did not give any specific evidence therein.
You can find more discussion about that here: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/ [craigmurray.org.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there was in some other investigation a claim that a RAT was found that was Russian. Problem is, it was later shown to be common to underground forums but the first analysis of that didn't know this. And then we had ridiculous things like allegedly some bank was, I dunno, making DNS queries about a Trump server or whatever that nonsense was that hit Slashdot some time ago.
Or there were some people complaining about, I think it was Guccifer's use of language saying they thought s/he was Russian? Of c
Re: (Score:3)
That would be great, if not for the fact that Hillary didn't release all of the emails to the FBI to begin with. The FBI only got paper copies after a lot of them were deleted and /u/stonetear (AKA Hillary's IT guy, Paul Combetta) had done whatever he was doing [archive.fo] in that infamous post.
Also, we know now that they use a bunch of aliases that make it hard to tell who is who. Here's a short cheat-sheet of those I happen to know. All of this is easily discovered by reading Wikileaks, so every item is an open se
So how can you believe the Russia BS? (Score:2)
Wikileaks trying to glom onto his murder was one of the biggest reasons I stopped trusting them.
Its yet another variation on the bullshit "clinton murders" conspiracy theory and not only is it intellectually bankrupt [snopes.com] it is demeaning to Mr Rich himself, making his death into a tool to diminish his own work and political beliefs.
If you're saying there's no proof that Clinton is in any way connected, I'll agree with you. If you're saying we know who killed Seth Rich or why, I'll have to disagree. There are public facing surveillance cameras all around that area, many of which have been mapped out by volunteers. Somehow, his killer or killers have thus far avoided being identified on any of them, though it's being actively investigated. Wikileaks lost their source and then a DNC staffer happened to die. There are enough staff th
Hmm, so who has more facts here? (Score:3)
> Everything else you wrote is bullshit conspiracy theory
Everything else? Not going to be specific, just going to write off everything?
I said we don't know who killed him and why. Surely you're not actually contradicting that part? Look at the police report [muckrock.com], there's just not much there.
Are you contradicting the part where I said there are security cameras in the area? Here's a nice list of them and maps [reddit.com]. You can walk all around Flagler Place & W St. NW and look at them if you want. The linked
Re: (Score:2)
Did people really think that Reddit staff couldn't edit posts?
How would that even work? How would your proposal work, from a technical perspective? Seems impossible to not have admins with full access to the database.
Re: (Score:2)
Digital signatures on every post would work. It would make the site harder to use though, since you would have to share your private key with every machine you post from (even your phone) and it's not easy to implement it in a browser. Not great, but maybe it doesn't quite meet the "impossible" label.
Re: (Score:2)
I have audited many companies... and I think I have come across maybe 2 that do that to the level you describe. The others... just get shit done.
And here, we are talking about POSTS on a random website.... not the NYSE. My professor had a saying: "Don't waste dollars chasing pennies."
Re: (Score:2)
In the long term, the only real way to deal with this is for people to sign their posts [gnupg.org] with public-key encryption.
Of course, even then you can only detect tampering, not outright censorship/deletion. The only way to fix that is by moving back to a decentralized system out of the control of any particular person, like Usenet.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you actually being serious? They are online posts! These aren't someone's Doctoral thesis. They are random opinions and discussions of random people around the world in a public setting behind user IDs. People actually believe that a private company's staff doesn't have the ability to edit the content generated by the users of their services?
What are you going to do, have a private/public key for every account and have it signed for each and every post. Each user has a browser plugin wasting comput
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not minor edits, and not a prank.
He did this to a thread linked up by a big newspaper article that drew lots of attention. He specifically edited posts that many people were going to see, and he edited them to make them look like the users of The_Donald hated the mods of The_Donald and thought they were crazy.
This was not him blowing off steam. This was not a harmless prank. This was a calculated and planned attempt to discredit, divide and slander a large group with political opinions that he doesn't li
Re:Only Fixed by Resigning (Score:5, Insightful)
When I started my first "proper" job fresh out of university, my first boss told me:
"Your reputation can recover from even spectacular incompetence if you look apologetic and keep your head down for a year or two at most. The moment you lose your integrity, it's gone for life."
Would be a better story if he hadn't been fired and referred to the police a few years later for fiddling money from consultancy contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
I think its what makes it enjoyable. Irony is entertaining.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually happy to see people learn from their errors. I would trust him much more than anyone else. He recognized what he did, he recognized his error. He knows he'll have no other chance now.
On the other hand, I'm sad to see every other guy call for resignation every time someone makes a mistake. It is actually the opposite : someone who did a mistake and suffered from it will never make it again. So that guy is now better and smarter ... why should he resign ?
Re: (Score:2)
He recognized what he did, he recognized his error.
You grossly misspelled "He recognized that he got caught red-handed" up there.
Sorry, but there's no trust to be salvaged from that one.
(...and why the fuck was a CEO even given database/middleware access, anyway? Doesn't he have more important shit to do, like you know, run the company?)
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot lose what was not already there (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
An echo chamber where the thought police are editing things behind the scenes is not even useful as an echo chamber.
Re:Only Fixed by Resigning (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is most "adults" today.
Lucky he is CEO. (Score:5, Insightful)
If I did this as an employee, I'd be fired on the spot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the infraction. Pretty sure that a CEO would be punished for doing something illegal with a child just as much as the janitor would...
In this case though, actively nuking a company's reputation from orbit (which is what he did) is more than plenty of reason needed to fire the CEO.
Re: (Score:3)
THis is actively worse coming from the CEO. If a low level admin did this, he'd be fired, the CEO would appologize and they'd think of procedures to prevent it from happening again, and it would blow over failrly quickly. Nobody would mistake it for something the company thought was ok.
The face that the CEO thought this was a good idea means that their entire company culture is one that accepts this. That destroys trust. We have no reason to believe he won't do it again in the future, or perform other m
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I thought that was the primary job duty of the CEO: to pick the pockets of investors. A CEO is primarily a salesman, and what good is an honest salesman?
too late (Score:2, Informative)
everybody head on over to voat. reddit sucks. reddit's the new digg
Re: (Score:2)
I like the new digg. Not so sure about reddit anymore.
Avoid banana republic thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
People who disagree with your political position are not "bullies" that you need to do something like this just because you have the capability. This thinking leads to single party police states.
Re:Avoid banana republic thinking (Score:5, Informative)
He did this to people calling him a pedophile, not people he discovered that voted the way he didn't want.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what they called him. He demonstrated that Reddit Admins/CEOs have editorial control over the content posted on their website.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
The court held that although CompuServe did host defamatory content on its forums, CompuServe was merely a distributor, rather than a publisher, of the content. As a distributor, CompuServe could only be held liable for defamation if it knew, or had reason to know, of the defamatory nature of the content.
The court held that "CompuServe has no more editorial control over such a publication than does a public library, book store, or newsstand, and it would be no more feasible for CompuServe to examine every publication it carries for potentially defamatory statements than it would be for any other distributor to do so."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
People who disagree with your political position are not "bullies" that you need to do something like this just because you have the capability.
What about Slashdot moderators who down-mod insightful, civil, fact-based posts as "Troll" just because they disagree with them?
Re: (Score:3)
That's different. The rules of what happens to your posts are clear and known to all.
Re:Avoid banana republic thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
My point is that moderators who abuse their power and don't follow moderator guidelines are acting like the "bullies" the OP mentions.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a good point because that behavior does drive people away. Presumably meta-moderation is supposed to counter that type of behavior, but I do wonder how many people ever take the time to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but that is a case of bullies who have the exact some power of those they bully. It's two people with the same abilities having a row. Instead of Reddit's case of a bully squashing ants.
Re: (Score:3)
Your post is still there, intact, and without edits. Even if every moderator trolled your posts to -2 would not change the fact your post will be there, intact, and without edits for anyone curious enough to look. There is a difference between an employee doing this without procedure and oversight that is unknown to users compared to a user moderation system that does not delete or change posts. /. moderation isn't perfect but it doesn't change what you post. I don't get how that type of moderation (it isn'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like it. I've always wanted to see a post modded "+5, Troll!"
Re: (Score:2)
Are they also changing the contents of posts?
No, but I suspect such moderators would if they could.
The point is that some moderators abuse their power. Instead of using mod points to promote a healthy discussion, they use it to advance their own agendas. They shouldn't be modding, but for some reason it seems that far too many of them are.
When I moderate, if I encounter a well-considered post that I disagree with, either I leave it alone, or moderate it "Interesting" if it seems worthy. I seldom use negative mod points, but when I do, it's for posts t
Re: (Score:2)
This. His speech portrays a very bad picture of himself. As the only one with any power, it is everyone else who are bullies, and he is just trying to do good.
paying reddit users want Steve Huffman's head (Score:5, Insightful)
We paying reddit users want his head on a pike; fire his ass
Re: (Score:2)
This is a crappy reason to fire the guy. He's been purging Reddit of unwanted communities ever since he took over and people (mostly) weren't calling for his head then. This is comparatively trivial, and given that he's fessed up about it and we know all of the comments that he edited and he's promised not to do it anymore...
Meh. Rather than continuing to make a fuss over this, it seems like it would be more constructive to move on to someplace else. Leave Reddit to the m
Re: (Score:2)
There are paying Reddit users?
That's what buying gold is.
Re: (Score:2)
We paying reddit users want his head on a pike; fire his ass
To be fair, the users are paying (advertisers), albeit with their eyeballs...
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're an anon here and more likely a 4chan anon who watches pedo-loli anime. Those aren't hate groups, no matter what your twitter SJW and their manlette friends say
Re: (Score:2)
He can be sane, but it doesn't change the fact that he damaged his company with his actions. Making common expressions of violent imagery is not reflective of actual fantacizing, and firing /u/spez's ass is the solution, not the problem.
Bring back Pao and all will be forgiven (Score:5, Funny)
Used Reddit for roughly 7-8 years, my thoughts. (Score:4, Interesting)
I stopped going to Reddit a week before this happened. There was a palpable feeling to the website that a lot of views were no longer welcome. What happened to the freedom of speech?
I really can't say what happened to Reddit but I have some thoughts. If you go to the smaller sub reddits they are great. But anything with a large amount of people becomes ridiculously political. You can't even say anything or have a discussion without someone attempting to force you to find a source for every little thing you say.
People need to learn how to just talk to each other again. That is where my mind goes.
Throw all this BS with the people leading reddit into the mix and you're finding people are now realizing the internet has limits. Yeah we can unite behind causes easier but people are still people. Coming up with names like trolls and fake news isn't going to stop people from being people. They talk. They spread information and half the time it isn't accurate. How is that any different then what goes on in most groups at school, work every day?
Re:Used Reddit for roughly 7-8 years, my thoughts. (Score:5, Funny)
You can't even say anything or have a discussion without someone attempting to force you to find a source for every little thing you say.
Citation needed.
Wait, on a free-to-use internet forum? (Score:3)
This isn't some legal filing server, or your email provider. It's a fucking web forum. And one that lets you use it for free. If the CEO if a dick, take your eyeballs and go elsewhere*.
*Please
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let's not delude ourselves. You can use it without cash but it's certainly not free, their revenue comes from somewhere and it's not all from gold members.
The Right Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
'The Right Thing' is not to mess with people's speech, even if it disagrees with your political views. This is SOP for the left-leaning these days, and yet they wonder why hillary lost to donald trump of all people.
Now, you have the right to do whatever you want on your platform, but that doesn't necessarily make it 'The Right Thing' to do. This isn't the first time social media has tried to modify narratives of users.
0 sympathy.
Re: (Score:3)
Go to any city council meeting and act a shitlord. See how long your right to free speech keeps them from throwing you out.
"In the spirit of fun" (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, no, dude, it wasn't in the spirit of fun. If it were, you would have seen the criticism of you as being in the spirit of fun. But that criticism was malice, and your response was malicious. It was in the spiriting of being an asshole.
Apology rejected.
How long will it take to regain trust? (Score:5, Insightful)
... and that he knows it will take time to rebuild trust within the community....
A person's integrity is destroyed in seconds, yet can take years to rebuild. I am not sure he can regain the users' trust in a time period he would like.
In other words... (Score:2)
"I was just joking!"
...
That sounds kinda childish to offer "it was just a prank" as an excuse.
It's a good thing... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah goddamit, and my "humorous" inserts got eaten in the parsing. Bah... talk about spoiling a perfectly good joke. That will teach me not to use "preview".
Re: (Score:3)
Digital signatures (Score:3)
If you care about what you say on the internet not being changed, use a digital signature.
WTF is wrong with Slashdot? (Score:2)
Out of the 174 posts on this thread (at the time of writing), there are only five mentioning the words [GPG|PGP|signature|encryption]. This is Slashdot, for crying out loud -- half the thread should be talking about that stuff!
Privatization of the public square (Score:5, Insightful)
the idea of the first amendment was that anyone can say anything on the public square, but online the "public" square is all privately owned by mostly large companies based in the Sanfrancisco or San Jose region and run by people who are predominately liberal. They are free to run their businesses as they and their shareholders see fit, but with so much of life hapnenning online, where are we supposed to have the "public square" if anyone with differant ideas gets treated badly or labeled "hate speech" or "fake news"?
If Facebook Twitter, Reddit and other leftist dominated companies run all the communications mediums, how are those who disagree to compete in the arena of ideas?
Re:Privatization of the public square (Score:4, Insightful)
If Facebook Twitter, Reddit and other leftist dominated companies run all the communications mediums, how are those who disagree to compete in the arena of ideas?
There's not supposed to be competition in the arena of ideas, didn't you know that? It's supposed to be an infinite echo chamber where all the heads nod up and down at the same time in the same way and nobody ever says anything that challenges anyone's preconceived notions. Those that do must be exiled, ridiculed, and called racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, arachnophobic, hydrophobic, and anything else derogatory the echo chamber can come up with regardless of whether or not it actually applies. Such is the mentality of the left in political discourse.
This is nothing new with the left. Go back to the origins with Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and so forth. Controlling thoughts and implementing groupthink has always been part and parcel of leftist ideology. It preys upon the typical desire to "fit in" and not be left out of a crowd. That's why every leftist government has always sought to ban certain types of speech -- either legally or extra-legally -- as part of its method for retaining power. The USSR did it to great effect for almost a century before it came crashing down. Today's "political correctness" is nothing more than the same ideology repackaged into something more aesthetically pleasing to the masses.
Re: (Score:2)
By creating new platforms. It's a good business opportunity. And it's already happening.
Re: (Score:2)
With the old literal public squares, who owned them?
Is that better or worse than the privately-owned "public squares" we have now or not?
(And do you expect such a publicly-owned internet square to have less of a left-leaning bias?)
count your blessings and resign (Score:2)
Steve Huffman has a net worth of many millions at age 33, based on nothing more than a mediocre ability for web design (judging by Reddit). He certainly doesn't seem like he is ready for a CEO position. He should count his blessings, resign, and spend the rest of his life bird watching, picking up women, or whatever strikes his fancy.
Trust? Seriously? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You take all of the worst elements of the German Stasi and Orwell's Ministry of Truth
So the ceo of some free to use web forum editing posts is equivalent to torturing people? Wrote, this is a new level of hyperbole.
The best will find great sites (Score:3)
Once topics people have put a lot of work into get banned, edited or removed?
Other really good US sites offer freedom of speech, freedom after speech and the freedom to read a comment later.
They trust their users, their users ideas, thoughts, words, comments and topics.
If a site does not like or trust its users to comment maybe the site should just publish the news, topics it likes?
Reddit's management staff (Score:2)
Authoritarianism is not exclusive to the right wing. Left wingers can be equally authoritarian.
And a lot of the time, we forget this. We are so proud of our ideological purity that we squash those who disagree with us.
And as a direct result, they rejected us in the elections. Because we stopped being liberals and started being the Fairness Police.
Huffman must go (Score:2)
Huffman must go.
If reddit users don't trust the community, there will be no community. Huffman did the unthinkable by covertly editing users posts; the only way reddit can recover users' trust is that Huffman must go.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all her fault (Score:2)
He should be fired immediately (Score:3)
Users will not trust Reddit headed by someone that edits their posts "because I can" for any reason whatsoever. This is more than a relatively innocent screwup. This is clear fraud and violation of the fundamental nature of Reddit. FIRE!
Too Much Authority (Score:3, Interesting)
A few months ago, our CEO lost badge access to our main data center. That was his pride and joy, and now he needs an escort in, because his job doesn't involve any requirement to work inside the room.
If you are a content provider, you probably need one or two people who are capable of editing any post, so that you can fix problems. However, there is no way that the CEO should have that kind of power. The fact that the CEO can just randomly edit content anywhere on the site, without auditing or accountability means that there is a culture out of control.
Re: Glad he did it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It caused enough fallout that he'd write this, so clearly not OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, and Tony Hayward is sorry. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
His thin seems as skin as Trump's
FTFY...
Re: (Score:2)
Does it happen to you a lot that you find yourself almost actually thinking?
Re: (Score:2)
"They are destroying our 'democracy' with their conspiracy theories... When the 'Make America Great Again Neighborhood Block Councils' are formed'...
u wot m8? Accidentally spilled that kool-aid into your cup, didn't notice, and decided to take the 'holier than though' approach while dying from heavy exposure to irony, eh?
That's cool, I mean, I don't mind if you condemn conspiritards while being a conspiritard... just makes me kind of baffled really. Like seeing a unicorn; something rare and beautiful that I