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.
Yeah his argument is dumb - if you don’t like a particular sub or how it is run, you can (or could), create a new one. This new move by reddit makes that pointlesss- literally saying if they don’t like how you run it, they’ll take it over. How is that ‘democratic’?
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.
I have the feeling, the current mess will be enough to fold reddit into nothing. With that move they managed to piss off the mods and the users. None of the app makers is going to pay the fee, they are all just quitting. And with that, Reddit won’t be making more money but instead they’ll just lose users.
If they are running critical as-is, this won’t improve anything.
That is not what they said and you know it, don’t be obtuse.
Of course the CEO of the company gets more freedom than you, a user. Guess what, if you’re in my house you have less freedom than I do. I can do whatever the fuck I want, because it’s my house. You do not get to do whatever you want in my house, because it’s my house. Bold take, I know.
Why do you think a guy who started/runs the company should be held to the same standards as its users?
The hypocrisy is that Spez is saying the fact a moderator starts a sub doesn’t entitle them to being in power when they become unpopular, yet he is entitled to retain his power when he becomes unpopular. The point of business being different is moot because Spez states, in the same quoted block, that this also applies to businesses.
It’s my basic inalienable human right to scrool and upvoot my reddits with Apollo on my iPhone! Give it me now or I’ll run away you… you feudal Nazi!!1!
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.
Yeah his argument is dumb - if you don’t like a particular sub or how it is run, you can (or could), create a new one. This new move by reddit makes that pointlesss- literally saying if they don’t like how you run it, they’ll take it over. How is that ‘democratic’?
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 :\
I have the feeling, the current mess will be enough to fold reddit into nothing. With that move they managed to piss off the mods and the users. None of the app makers is going to pay the fee, they are all just quitting. And with that, Reddit won’t be making more money but instead they’ll just lose users.
If they are running critical as-is, this won’t improve anything.
That is not what they said and you know it, don’t be obtuse.
Of course the CEO of the company gets more freedom than you, a user. Guess what, if you’re in my house you have less freedom than I do. I can do whatever the fuck I want, because it’s my house. You do not get to do whatever you want in my house, because it’s my house. Bold take, I know.
The hypocrisy is that Spez is saying the fact a moderator starts a sub doesn’t entitle them to being in power when they become unpopular, yet he is entitled to retain his power when he becomes unpopular. The point of business being different is moot because Spez states, in the same quoted block, that this also applies to businesses.
Is it?
If it is, should they? Feels like you’re blindly assuming that it HAS to be that way. I wholly disagree that it does.
undefined> If it is, should they?
Don’t go late stage capitalism on me now.
Don’t go boot-licking feudalist on me now.
Some tendies before you go, Che?
deleted by creator
Post, you mean? I do.
Lolno, why would I mess with such a glorious, once-in-a-lifetime happening?
@Lorez @squaresinger But their business is… not working :D
It never did, that’s the point. Ran at a loss from day one. Possible (likely?) the funding’s drying up, so might be a sink-or-swim moment for them.