Tl;Dr Reddit does not hate free speech, they are simply a company whose goal is profit.
I see hate for Pao, who Reddit hired to absorb the hate they were going to receive for banning subreddits and banning Reddit's AMA coordinator.
Pao fit the bill, as she was already suing a former employer over sexual coordination. She was not hired for her management skills, which she supposedly used to force Reddit to make unpopular changes shortly after becoming CEO.
And we should not hate her, or Reddit, for this change. Their purpose is to sell ads, not support free speech.
Reddit is great for unpopular movements because it has the largest audience. And that is how come we value it. While a small portion of people support free speech, even fewer support libertarian ideals, and only a fraction of these support TRP's goal: educating men on the consequences of actions and behaviours in interactions with women. Reddit has been beneficial to TRP's popularization.
LL: While its sad to see unpopular speech banned from Reddit, its wrong to force it to stay, and wrong to think Reddit is hating unpopular speech, these bans are simply a byproduct of their profit motive.
cover20 8y ago
I despise Ms. Pao for the crap she pulled legally against her former employer Kleiner, and her generally seedy business life with her husband. I don't know why she was given a job here after that. If it was to be scapegoat for some planned changes, that's how the cookie crumbles. At least it was better for her than being unemployed for those months.
I don't hate her. Don't have to bother.
RealGucciSosa 8y ago
Basically, you're saying that Pao is the fallguy and merely a public figurehead for reddit?
Well, any major company or corporation will have a board deciding direction. So one person coming out of the blue to become chairman, almost never has the only say. But is she the fall guy? I don't thin so. Even suggesting that exonerates her of her own part in the whole controversy.
Now what I do think may have been a preplanned move, is having a woman as chairman. If it was a man in her place, things would be much worse. For all the different types of people who use reddit, I'm surprised I haven't heard any doxxing, threats or blackmail towards Pao. You can bet that would be the case if it was a guy. Since its a woman, the neckbeards are keeping in line.
plenkton 8y ago
In your second paragraph you state Pao is not meant to be the fall guy, and in your third you state she was a better fall guy than a man would have been. But you still allude to a female chairman being used by Reddit to survive the controversy. Is it you figure my focus was Pao as the chairman as opposed to any other female? If so, I suggested Pao was a good choice because she is naturally associated with the changes made, and thus Redditors more easily accepted Pao as the fall guy. But I do agree with your point that any female would have been better than an any man. From what I gather, you express that Reddit did not care about the type of female they hired as much as her vag.
Please respond as I'd like to know your actual point.
RealGucciSosa 8y ago
The point is simple. There is no fall guy. There's a committee/board, as is the case with any organization, and Pao is just one piece (as the figurehead). She is not the be all and end all. Which in turn means, she is just as guilty as any other person along with her whose making these controversial decisions. I would also assume that this board or her predecessor (haven't read into it) decided it would be a better idea to give the job to a woman than a man, because it would go down easier than had it been a man.
plenkton 8y ago
The first part of this comment touts that there was no plan for these decisions, yet later in the same comment you suggest Pao was hired because it (controversial decisions) would go down easier.
The only opinion in this statement I do not see conflicting, is that Pao had some guilt in these decisions.
RealGucciSosa 8y ago
Replace [Pao] with any other qualified female. It could have been anyone, a female is simply a "safer" bet than a male target. I never said there's no plan, that's precisely what boards are for!
If every single nuance needs to be reiterated and broken down to you, maybe this isn't the sub for you.
plenkton 8y ago
You contradict yourself, and make clarifications with arbitrary binary meanings- one is you agreeing with me, the other not. However you describe your opinion the same as mine, except with less detail. Thus I expect there to be additional nuance hidden, or information you did not include in your point. When you explain neither is true, you have explained your opinion of events as a subset is mine- but still someway disagree with me.
RealGucciSosa 8y ago
Take what you will. Like i told someone in another thread, I don't look at things black and white.
plenkton 8y ago
Its not the shades of grey causing non-understanding, its you contradicting yourself within the same comment.
2012Aceman 8y ago
And this is why Reddit doesn't cater to us: we are not their target consumer. This is why Reddit doesn't care about the people they lose by coming out against free speech: because their largest base doesn't actually want freedom of speech either. Even if it's a totally stupid concept and the very antithesis of democracy (their proclaimed goal) they'll still be able to cash in and hold onto their prestige as a champion of the Progressive Movement.
plenkton 8y ago
While those who know the importance of free speech are the minority, its importance is realized by those with strong rationalization. And we need those to lead. However it seems that no matter how determined a country's economic leaders may be, even they are susceptible to the overbearing government.
Hillary 2016. May it get bad fast so that my lifetime sees it getting better.
2012Aceman 8y ago
For a long time I've been wondering if the solution is:
A) Try and fight the change, see if we can reform the system and put all of the protections against this crap back in place, or
B) Change sides and crash the thing into the ground so damn hard it hopefully bounces back up and we can do something with it afterward.
Either way we're in for a lot of suffering and a long fight.
plenkton 8y ago
While some of us understand that limitations on human choice is detrimental, even though we cannot prove it beyond doubt. Even at our worst, which will come, human freedom will blamed for the perils of our situation. However at this time those who lead will show everyone how freedom is the prime mover of human achievement.
2012Aceman 8y ago
Categorizing what they believe in as "freedom" is something I disagree with. Their "freedom" comes at the cost of our slavery, because we are forced to take care of them. If it were true freedom they would have the right to go out and make stupid mistakes, and when they did they'd have to take responsibility. This is not how the current system works. In the current system they have the freedom to make stupid decisions, but then after they become victims, oppressed, downtrodden, helpless, and therefore they must be taken care of by the people who chose not to be stupid. All the while, because they no longer have responsibilities, they're free to play and breed eventually leading to more people that "need" taken care of.
The only way they can keep that system going is to take control of the productive members of society. They do this by shaming them, by re-educating them, by taking their resources, and if all else fails by attacking them. It's starting to trickle out now with new laws, precedents, and orders. However every good tactician knows that you don't lay down your cards until you've already won, and that's what I fear most about everything that's happened in the past couple years: it's already been decided, they're just letting us know.
plenkton 8y ago
You mention they plan to take control of productive people. Even if we assume that enough people will always remain working to feed/clothe people, its unlikely our standards of living will continue to grow. Our standard of living is still increasing because of its momentum over the last century. However the losses in motivated people and outdated infrastructure are not immediately apparent.
And while I agree our society will have ever increasing prevelance of those who do not create value, I believe that eventually the productive members of society will reject government interference.
2012Aceman 8y ago
Oh without doubt the productive members will eventually reject the government. However, let us look around. Day by day the productive numbers dwindle, while the helpless increase. The productive attitude is seen as an affront to helpless values, and we in RedPill are no strangers to how people can manipulate the culture to produce bad outcomes. The government amasses more and more money, creating more jobs to help the needy (jobs which do not create money but instead drain it), which makes more people dependent on the government for their income. Eventually the government will have a stranglehold on the power. As you say, the standard of living will eventually decline as more people drop out of the workforce and start taking handouts. But that is exactly what they want, because with a reduced standard of living will come riots, which will allow the government to use force, which will cement their hold.
If you don't believe that's true go onto any reddit thread about social services. If you advocate cutting or limiting government handouts in any way you'll get tons of responses telling you that if you cut back then the people will rise up and riot, or steal from you, or whatever. Even they are saying that with reduced responsibilities people become like animals pursuing their own basic needs above all else, even when a non-violent alternative (like getting a job or finding a provider) is available. One person (he was male, but not a man) actually said that "responsibility is an outdated concept."
plenkton 8y ago
When you think of people resorting to stealing, this will happen when people see less value in cooperation than taking by force. While riots will allow governments to take further control, disease will cure us of urban populace, and thus of the communist voterbase. I believe it will be at this point when people once again see the value in cooperation.
We agree that America and Europe are declining in freedom and prosperity. Perhaps neither of us is sure how low we will hit. We know freedom in all aspects of life is the best, and will always come back. But how long can the world survive on the momentum of the past, coupled with the productive individuals of the present?
2012Aceman 8y ago
For as long as the productive individuals consent to being the true victims: those who are being leeched off of to provide for the "victims". For as long as the media and the government are allowed to manipulate the people, by the people. For as long as they can convince people to do as they say or die, secretly hoping they choose not to die because if they do they'll have nobody to rule over or take things from.
In America it will come about when people actually start using that insurance they got from healthcare.gov, because it is utter garbage. Our government sold us out to the insurance companies, and now the insurance companies and hospitals are looking to get as much money as they can before the bubble collapses. But what people don't realize is that the insurance companies are ponzi schemes, and the only reason they exist is to make money. That is why they deny claims, that is why the paperwork process is so long, convoluted, and unforgiving. They got us all to swallow it by saying that people need healthcare. But health insurance is not healthcare. All health insurance does is limit the healthcare you receive by putting you in a limited provider network and forcing you to pay for deductibles and insane out of pocket expenses on top of paying for the insurance itself! Healthcare helps the people. Health insurance helps insurance companies. And coincidentally as these laws were coming out new laws were put in place so that insurance companies wouldn't have to have as much on-hand collateral as was required before insurance was mandatory. Meaning that the insurance companies don't actually have the money necessary to pay on the policies they sell. And what happens when they don't have the money? They sell out and shut down, keeping the money and totally screwing the customer.
plenkton 8y ago
I'm not USA member. Canada here. Healthcare is mediocre, and we pay lots for it. I see the USAs biggest waste in the hospitals. Thing is, here people view the ACA as a step forwards, when infact it may be the greatest failure the USA has made, only second to providing ANY welfare programs.
At least the insurance companies are emulating your government. Ponzi schemes throughout.
I don't predict healthcare will ever be explicitly denied, even with the fall of all insurance companies. Its the treatment that will be bad. Thing is, treatment will be evenly distributed among most, which people have misattributed to the word fair. They see fair as equal treatment, not as it's actual meaning: you harvest what you sew.
Up here, in Canada, our conservative government has stopped government funded science (oxymoron here IMO), and is good for our economy. However it is troublesome to see Alberta, our most troublesome province, to elect a socialist government. But this has been the effect of falling oil prices.
While I hope Canada does not follow USA, it's inevitable.
At least we can experience the third world at home, together. .
plenkton 8y ago
While I concede the statists won the moment government was introduced, I expect freedom to come and go many times. Do you expect freedom to not be popular for a long time?
2012Aceman 8y ago
Freedom can never truly be taken away from people, because people will always be free. You can always choose to die instead of being a slave, even with a gun to your head they can't make you do something you do not want to do. I don't believe this is the end of freedom or of government. What I'm inquiring about is the most effective path to get back to that freedom. Do we simply drop out and become more of the helpless, short circuiting the system, or do we hope to win the battle of hearts and minds with the current generation (I actually couldn't finish typing that without laughing).
plenkton 8y ago
Yeah, I agree you were starting to lose touch with reality there.
I believe short circuiting is the way to go. The system will fry (more money, but less value. Inflation is going to hit hard.)
Those who rely on the government are able to survive, but thriving is done by those who innovate and create more value than their competitor (even I'd we are comparing factory workers).
Once society is hurting and death and disease are rampant, the populace will see the good of freedom and of work. But by then we will be bartering.
How do you suppose rock bottom will play out?
2012Aceman 8y ago
Rock bottom plays out by the government consolidating their forces in the Northeast for protection. That's where the big cities are, that's where the capital is, and that's where a good portion of the army lies. I like your idea that those who innovate and create will be the future, and that is absolutely true. What is less talked about is the in between part: when the safety net falls and the people start scrambling and going primal. The thing about givers is that they need to decide when to stop giving, because the takers never will. And when the takers stop having their needs met they're going to become violent. Many of those creative, ambitious people will perish with them should they decide to riot. Because the rioters never choose the poor districts, there's nothing good there. They want the rich areas, the areas with the resources and the cool stuff. And there's a lot more of the takers now than the givers, which puts us in a Shaka Zulu situation. This is the part I'm most concerned about, because I'm not sure what will be left standing after the world is razed.
plenkton 8y ago
So you will have a starving army trying to keep cities under control. I'm not sure cities will be important, but perhaps those potatoes farms in Idaho may need guard. One potatoe per person per week.
And with so little fertile land person in the US, fleeing to the country to ravage the crops will not work beyond a few years.
Its tough to imagine massive death in the USA, but how will people survive once the dollar is worth nothing? No trade, no economy.
plenkton 8y ago
I don't think we can stop 'giving.' I think people will form groups of 500 who grow and defend food and other resources.
Stayinghereforreal 8y ago
Serious question: did she make Reddit profitable?
If no, then she should be fired. If yes, she may still be worthy of firing if she is pissing off the staff so much that good staff are leaving and bad staff are burrowing in deeper.
plenkton 8y ago
Pao made Reddit more palpable to advertisers. The subs banned make some feel uncomfortable, also Reddit does not want to be associated with groups that make their users uncomfortable.
Stayinghereforreal 8y ago
Did she make it profitable, though? Because she claims to be a businesswoman. Okay. I am unsure, however, if she even did what her first job is: make more money in revenue than she spends in expenses.
I am unsure if she ever did that anywhere where she had front-line responsibility for revenue and expenses. Yet people keep acting as though she is a star.
cover20 8y ago
She was offered operating roles in client companies at Kleiner, and turned them down. She wanted to be an investing partner, dammit!
plenkton 8y ago
One can either assume Reddit's board wanted to waste money and burn its userbase, and thus hired Pao. Or we can assume these businesspeople are not idiots, and they hired Pao to play a role in Reddit's development.
Stayinghereforreal 8y ago
Look up false choice as a rhetorical device.
One can assume a lot more than the binary world you present.
For example, one could assume the board are idiots, and stupidly thought a "businesswoman" with Pao's record--i.e., no apparent history of directly managing a profitable business line--was the person to hire in this instance. My question is not about assumption, though, it is asking if anyone knows more about Pao's history.
jdgalt 8y ago
I disagree in principle. Shutting down fatpeoplehate was called for because it was being used to organize threats and harassment against people who disagreed with the group. But if reddit starts shutting down groups for mere political dissent, it will defeat its stated purpose and (I hope) will be abandoned en masse.
As for Ms. Pao, her sex-discrimination case against her previous employer (rightly dismissed by a judge as un-called-for) tells me all I need to know about her. I don't ever want her as boss of anything I depend on. Her most lasting effect on reddit that I know about is the unjustified firing of Chooter, who did most of the work in IAmA. Chooter got plenty of good offers, so I don't think we're going to get her back.
[deleted] 8y ago
when you want to say 'how come', just say 'why'
[deleted]
[deleted]
aphelion3342 8y ago
I think this is putting the cart before the horse. You mean to say that the company knew it was going to take a series of social justice initiatives and burn a bunch of cash and needed someone to blame it on, and that's why they hired Pao? That doesn't add up.
plenkton 8y ago
First, ofc they knew they were going to make many changes. Its silly to think a company places it's profitability in the hands of someone they know is liable to seriously affect it.
The money spent on Pao is the cost of these changes not being attributed to Reddit's long time CEOs.
jdgalt 8y ago
If that's true it suggests we should blame reddit's board, or at least the faction that appointed Pao CEO.
Brewjo 8y ago
It's like Thatcher all over again ....