Literally founded the place; chosen by co-founders/people with stakes in the company to be their CEO. That’s how businesses work, OP, stop being silly.
No problem with that. The hypocritical part is that he argued that mods are bad, because they aren’t chosen democratically. Here’s the quote I have trouble with:
“If you’re a politician or a business owner, you are accountable to your constituents."
“And I think, on Reddit, the analogy is closer to the landed gentry: The people who get there first get to stay there and pass it down to their descendants, and that is not democratic.”
He says, the mods are bad because they haven’t been elected. But neither has he.
If he wants to suppress mods because they weren’t voted in, maybe there should be a vote about his position.
undefined> mods are bad, because they aren’t chosen democratically
Why do you think a guy who started/runs the company should be held to the same standards as its users? I open a cake shop, I get to make the rules, even though I’m not ‘democratically elected’ by my customers. The very idea that someone has to vote me in is hilarious to me. If, in my shop, I let you run a lemonade stand, you won’t have the same rights as I. How is this not obvious?
So because he’s the CEO he shouldn’t be held to standards? Bold take.
But sure, he doesn’t have to follow any standards. He can run Reddit in the ground as much as he likes. But he can’t expect the mods and the users to stay if he holds others to ridiculous standards while not caring a bit about his own standards.
Yeah, but what’s Reddit without mods and users? Tumblr.
Most subs I frequented were actively looking for new mods because nobody wanted to do the job as-was. If he really kicks out mods en masse, who is going to replace them? They had difficulties finding enough mods when Reddit wasn’t actively fighting against the mods.
Upvoted, but it won’t work.
Of course it won’t. But it would help to colour him as the hypocrite he is.
Literally founded the place; chosen by co-founders/people with stakes in the company to be their CEO. That’s how businesses work, OP, stop being silly.
No problem with that. The hypocritical part is that he argued that mods are bad, because they aren’t chosen democratically. Here’s the quote I have trouble with:
He says, the mods are bad because they haven’t been elected. But neither has he.
If he wants to suppress mods because they weren’t voted in, maybe there should be a vote about his position.
undefined> mods are bad, because they aren’t chosen democratically
Why do you think a guy who started/runs the company should be held to the same standards as its users? I open a cake shop, I get to make the rules, even though I’m not ‘democratically elected’ by my customers. The very idea that someone has to vote me in is hilarious to me. If, in my shop, I let you run a lemonade stand, you won’t have the same rights as I. How is this not obvious?
So because he’s the CEO he shouldn’t be held to standards? Bold take.
But sure, he doesn’t have to follow any standards. He can run Reddit in the ground as much as he likes. But he can’t expect the mods and the users to stay if he holds others to ridiculous standards while not caring a bit about his own standards.
I doubt he does, hence this shitstorm
Yeah, but what’s Reddit without mods and users? Tumblr.
Most subs I frequented were actively looking for new mods because nobody wanted to do the job as-was. If he really kicks out mods en masse, who is going to replace them? They had difficulties finding enough mods when Reddit wasn’t actively fighting against the mods.
Not much. OTOH, from the financial perspective, reddit is nothing now. In all its years of operation, it’s been relying on founding rounds to keep its head above water, yet to show a profit :\