I'd think so. Now we _know_ admins can and have edited comments without people knowing. Makes you wonder if they've done it in the past.

On the other hand, i can claim that the admin edited my comments whenever i 'm wrong.

Exactly. Reddit has now completely lost credibility.

It might to some people. It doesn't for me though.

I personally want to see more corporate leadership taking responsibility and leadership for backing up their personal views and those of their employees. A good example is how Grubhub's CEO Matt Maloney sent a company-wide email about the culture of the company that I respect quite a lot. http://media.grubhub.com/media/press-releases/press-release-...

Now do I agree with exactly what /u/spez did? Personally, the vindictive part of me likes the idea of fucking around with the morons in that subreddit. But as the ceo of the company, no. If it was any employee that had done it, they would likely have been terminated or at least had a severe write-up, no matter how much the leadership agreed with it. But when its the ceo, I'm not sure what the outcome will/should be.

To be completely honest, we have to remember that reddit is a company and not the public airwaves. There is no requirement that it be a bastion of free speech for all users. If I were running reddit, I would have banned that subreddit months ago. Any users found to be making racist, homophobic, hateful, or any other kind of similar commentary would have been permabanned a long time ago. The internet is a big place and its already too full of negativity. There are no socially positive reasons to provide places for it to fester.

Maloney's email was terrible. I would never want to work for someone like that, and never will if I can avoid it. It was a kind and wonderful thing to send a company-wide email saying something to the tune of "If you ever feel marginalized in any way, come to me personally, immediately." He then promptly shat all over the goodwill by indirectly calling for Trump voters to quit. Screw that. I would have loved to have seen a brazen employee call him on that.

That's fair and I respect your point of view. But I have a different perspective. I'll grant that emotions are still heightened from the election, but if anything it has brought some long-term underlying issues to the surface. I'm no longer comfortable working for/with people that take positions that disenfranchise and discriminate against other people.

I actually think we agree more than it may seem, even if not entirely. I too am no longer comfortable working for or with those people. I just think it's egregiously bad form for a CEO to send a mass email calling for X group to quit if Y. Whether that's that you voted for a political candidate, or whatever. It's a pitchfork-y mentality that I think only serves to embolden whoever the perceived opposition is, even if it's in the medium or long term rather than the immediate. In this case, it's the racists/alt-right/etc. And to me, actions like Maloney's only strengthen communities like /r/The_Donald. Just my 2c.

Yeah I agree. Actually I'm not traveling for Thanksgiving. If you're in SF and want to get lunch tomorrow send me a message at charles@geuis.com. Be happy to chat for a bit.

> I personally want to see more corporate leadership taking responsibility and leadership for backing up their personal views and those of their employees. A good example is how Grubhub's CEO Matt Maloney sent a company-wide email about the culture of the company that I respect quite a lot.

I'm guessing that's likely because you agree with the political stances of Spez and Mr Maloney. Would you be equally supportive of a leader of a large company espousing the virtue of traditional gender roles or other socially conservative stances?

Well, to be completely honest, yes. It would be honest and help to get away from the common political non-stance that most companies take.

Two good examples of this are Chick-fil-a and Hobby Lobby. (I worked for Chick-fil-a briefly when I was a teenager. I appreciated never having to work on a Sunday.) Both of these companies establish policies based on the belief structures of their founders. I readily admit to being an liberal atheist and am proud to stand behind that. While I may not agree personally with those policies, the companies are very forthcoming about them and as a customer, it helps me to make decisions about whether I am comfortable or not doing business with them.

To be even more specific, I want leadership of companies to be more open and honest with these things specifically because we have a lot of hard-won laws in the US to prevent discrimination. I want conservative leadership to be called out and potentially punished when they violate the law, rather than being allowed to execute their discriminatory beliefs in private and hide them under made-up reasons.

Now just to round that last statement out, I do not stand for other progressives and liberals to discriminate against people just because they hold personal conservative viewpoints. As long as everyone is obeying the law and not letting their beliefs affect the lives of others, I seriously couldn't care less what they think. Do I personally believe that conservatives are lacking in basic levels of education and compassion for other people? Yes, yes I do. Do I believe that those people should somehow be discriminated against just because they are happy to discriminate against other people? No, I don't.

So I guess to summarize the answer to your question: Yes I have similar political stances as those two, but I want more openness among all corporate leadership because it makes it much easier and clearer to decide which companies to do business with.

Based on what you've written here, I think you might find Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" interesting. He's been involved in a lot of recent research into human psychology, morals, and understanding how people can arrive at different political stances.

Thanks for the recommendation. Just purchased on audible and is up next in my listening que.

Reddit had credibility?

Personally, I think this is hilarious.

What credibility? Even on 4chan, which has next to zero credibility AND no voting/reputation system intended for 'self-policing' (so it is not likely to ever become credible), some users express their dissatisfaction with low quality or spammy posts by suggesting the perpetrator go to, or return to, Reddit. This is also a common occurrence here — should a HN user make a useless post, particularly when invoking a meme or trolling, that user is often reminded that HN is not Reddit. This is not a proof of Reddit's lack of credibility, just an interesting/amusing anecdote.

Reddit is not an oft-cited source of news. By and large, it is a marketplace for link sharing coupled with a comment system and a currency of reputation. In other words, a forum focused on reacting to content elsewhere around the web but with some original content here and there. Where there is credible content, it is often from somewhere else like a news vendor. Everything else, including all comments on any thread, must be subjected to scrutiny and distrust as with any other forum. For starters, any comment can be a deliberately hyperbolic or entirely false/nonsensical assertion — rhetoric or sophistry — and thus no comment should be trusted on the grounds that it being correct may be coincidental if the intention was not to be correct, but rather to incite a reaction from others (trolling).

Then there is of course the possibility (indeed inevitability) that posts will be edited silently by those with sufficient permissions in the forum system, or access to the database if the system does not have silent edits built in. I say 'inevitable' because, given enough time, those with access to administrative power or the database itself will find a reason to silently edit something, by someone, somewhere.

No forum should be treated as credible. Even if your study is about how forum users behave, you cannot trust those you study to be behaving normally as their intentions are always questionable. We don't have Asimov's psycho-history yet.

I do not think forums have ever been credible sources of information, and I have participated in discussions on forums for fifteen years now. HN has more credibility than others, but that has been earned by clever people who visit this community for the sake of discussing intellectual topics — not the founding ideal of Reddit.

If the US has had congress hearings on the basis of Reddit posts, as was stated in a comment above, that is testament only to the ignorance of the US congress.

Edit: if you mean viability when you say credibility, i.e. in terms of generating revenue/getting investment, that depends on the rationality of its current/future investors. Assuming rational behaviour, this probably won't make any difference. The users will still come and if anything Reddit users should feel better precisely because the CEO fessed up to silent edits. It means that the issue can be addressed, perhaps with PGP signatures as suggested by others here; the ability to make silent edits by administrators could be removed; and the code powering Reddit could be open-sourced to prove that (apologies if it already is open-source, I am ignorant of the state of Reddit's back-end).

I would disagree with your claim of Reddit users not creating original content; the moment you step out of the default subs, you have great niche communities where you can find absolute gems on a regular basis.

The key is to look in the comments, not in the main post itself.

Fair to say. I did not mean to imply that no original content was produced on Reddit, only that its primary mission or purpose is to share and discuss — not to authoritatively, reliably and accountably document — ergo, the site had little credibility to lose.