This article dramatically understates the magnitude of the shitstorm that is currently unfolding. Check out http://www.reddit.com/r/all/ if you feel like seeing all the ugliness.
(And if anyone has any doubts that this is ultimately about harassment, count how many of the posts on the front page (and their comments) are made up of personal attacks and/or obscenities targeted at CEO Ellen Pao.)
I don't fault the Reddit admins for trying to clean things up but I can't see any good that will come of this. To paraphrase a comment that I saw earlier today and now can't find, it's like trying to get rid of an anthill with a leaf-blower; you just end up with pissed-off ants everywhere.
I think banning the fatpeoplehate subreddit wouldn't have gone over so badly if it wasn't for the fact that Ellen Pao was already kind of hated on the site for constantly banning and deleting anything disagreeing with her viewpoint about her law suit.
Even political cartoons with her driving the tank and the reddit alien with a down vote in front were getting deleted, which were quite funny and appropriate, since she was shadow banning and deleting people basically for down voting her law suit.
It's tough to stand up and defend the fatpeoplehate group, but when someone abusing their power and deleting anything they don't agree with in a lawsuit does it, well, in this case maybe a villain ruining the site on her managed to do something not terrible, but because she is a villain it comes across a lot worse.
Please stop spreading this nonsense. I expected better from HN.
>constantly banning and deleting anything disagreeing with her viewpoint about her law suit.
There are multiple posts on multiple reddits, each with thousands of points and comments that were not deleted. They were deleted by sub moderators on some subs because they were offtopic and were being vote brigaded and had comments full of hate speech.
Do you have any source that gives more detail about a post of "editorial cartoon" being deleted? That does seem an odd example.
Editorial cartoons are a pretty fundamental part of journalism. What if Tony Blair could delete news of the world editorial cartoons?
Seems to cross a line and, all due respect, until I saw proof that a delete happened, I'd be more likely to believe it was a histrionic "just-so-story"
I mean, Pao deleting this stuff personally? Even admins doing it?
"If you don't believe in freedom of speech for those you loathe, you don't believe in freedom of speech." (1600 points and gone from http://reddit.com/r/bestof)
The situation seems almost identical to when Reddit axed r/jailbait: one of their more embarrassing communities started to get too much attention, its users were increasingly behaving in a way that was damaging Reddit, and Reddit decided to kill it (ostensibly for the greater good of the site).
But even though that pissed plenty of people off... I don't recall the front page being totally dominated by calls for anyone's head on a silver platter. Reddit's userbase seems to feel especially threatened by Ellen Pao, and it's hard for me to believe that the difference is anything rational.
Reddit's userbase seems to feel especially threatened by Ellen Pao, and it's hard for me to believe that the difference is anything rational.
Well, she has basically said that she wants to start cleaning up the "objectionable" sides of reddit. Plus, there is a strong sentiment that content that's critical of her (even the less hateful stuff) has been removed often in the past.
Pao is attempting to "clean up"... in an environment that cherishes its traditional freewheeling and unrestrained discourse. Even if the stuff getting cleaned up is just the stuff that most people agree deserves it - for some value of deserves - it's a troubling precedent to set.
Some people find themselves wondering what opinions will be deemed unsafe next. The policies are not exactly clear-cut, and neither are the actions of the administration.
I never understood why reddit was so lenient with its community. There are so many racists and hateful subreddits, that attract more and more people like that, that makes the community as a whole worse.
I'm really glad that moderation actions like that are taken, and I'm sad that people reply to that by "harassing" the CEO...
Hopefully such people will get frustrated by such events and will eventually leave reddit.
Note that it's mostly people posting to /r/punchablefaces that are reaching r/all right. Another hateful reddit for you...
PS: FWIW, /r/all has always been pretty bad. If you want a good reddit experience do like me: unsubscribe from most subreddits and suscribe to smaller subreddits with active moderators.
> I never understood why reddit was so lenient with its community. There are so many racists and hateful subreddits, that attract more and more people like that, that makes the community as a whole worse.
There's a large segment of the online community in general that understands the ideal of free speech to mean that no one may ever be prevented from saying anything, in any location or context. These folks believe that the banning of /r/shitniggerssay deserves exactly as much righteous indignation as, say, secret police disappearing anyone who speaks against the government. Reddit was founded on this ideal, and has only recently started to move away from it.
This understanding of "free speech" was obviously originated by petulant children on BBSes and Usenet groups casting about for a justification to (ironically) silence anyone who disagreed with them. I'm not really clear how it became something that otherwise-rational adults espouse in defense of people other than themselves.
They should just shut down the site. Who knew the internet would devolve into middle school bullying of fat people? It was just ten years or so ago that the kids started to get on myspace. We've reached the point where even the dumbest people have internet access. They've ruined everything.
If they really want to go down this road, it feels like there's only one destination: real Know-Your-Customer-esque identity verification to prevent registration of duplicate accounts, like banks and X.509 CAs do.
If-and-when they do that, they will finally have an actually-effective tool (in the form of being able to ban people "for good") to stop harassment. Until then, it will just go on forever.
Urbit comes with this kind of identity management baked-in. It hasn't been shown yet to scale to the proportions of reddit. I'm not sure that even reddit has enough staff now to do that.
(And if anyone has any doubts that this is ultimately about harassment, count how many of the posts on the front page (and their comments) are made up of personal attacks and/or obscenities targeted at CEO Ellen Pao.)
I think people are just upvoting anything that is critical of reddit at the moment. I doubt most people actually care who, if anyone, is being targeted.
You've got to give Christopher Poole credit, he was never dumb enough to try to police 4chan. This is as laughable as trying to get rid of trolling on IRC.
The sites are very comparable, which is why everyone is comparing them. 4chan being profitable, and reddit not being profitable don't make them not comparable.
Lots of ads have fat shaming in them, so I'm not sure why you wouldn't want diet pill ads next to fat shaming posts. Have you read any fitness articles recently? It's pretty much fat shaming content, next to ads for things that might make you less fat.
He said in an interview that it was technically profitable, but that nobody was taking a paycheck. That was in 2010. It's been supposed that the 'passes' system in 2012 made the site actually-profitable, but I haven't seen any statement to that effect.
He also offered refunds for the passes last year because Google's new Recaptcha system meant that a lot of users were no longer seeing captchas at all.
Yes, he was. When GamerGate happened, that's exactly what he attempted to do. He replaced most of the mods on the site within a very short amount of time and the heavy handed policing started. Most of 4chan left in response. Many alternative chan sites were started, including 8ch.net.
You're stating that like it's a fact. I don't think there's any credible evidence of the 4chan staff makeup changing significantly during GamerGate, other than a "leaked" IRC chatlog which essentially portrayed moot & mods cackling gleefully while rubbing their hands together like James Bond villains.
HN users consistently imply this place has better comments than Reddit. "Reddit is a cesspool." "Can we please not bring this to HN as well." etc.
I've never had a problem avoiding content I didn't like there. Meanwhile I saw great discussions at various times.
Here, on the other hand, I've nearly stopped reading. Besides the unjustified elitism, constantly I'd post on a thread here only to see it disappear with no explanation. I don't understand HN's weighting and it seems to change without notice, or it did a while ago. Arbitrary curating means someone is arbitrarily imposing their values on discussions. I prefer allowing legal speech.
I generally preferred Reddit to HN and will probably end up going to Voat.co like everyone else talks about.
EDIT: Case in point: When I posted the above, the story was number 1 and it was about fifty minutes old. When it hit one hour, it dropped to number 5. The stories that it dropped behind were 5 to 12 hours old so I doubt they suddenly got surges of activity.
In the time I wrote the above edit this story dropped to number 11. Soon it will probably drop from the front page. Who knows?
I don't understand HN's weighting. Maybe this story is getting downvoted and user behavior is driving its trajectory, but it seems arbitrary and tells me to leave the site.
EDIT 2: corrected voat.co address thanks to ljk's comment.
> Arbitrary curating means someone is arbitrarily imposing their values on discussions.
This has been bothering me about HN for some time. Maybe it's due to a smaller user base, but having stories disappear, specific user's comments always being weighted lower, and childish hellbanning is really discouraging. It does give the sense of a 'country club', where if you're not of the same bread and butter as those making the rules then you're not welcome.
HN isn't very good, but it's a little better than the current state of reddit, which is like a middle school without adults. At least people try to be intellectual on HN.
It really depends where you look and what subreddits you subscribe to. Opening reddit this morning looked exactly the same to me as any other day, except for one thread because I'm subscribed to /r/subredditdrama.
I don't know how to feel about this. On one hand I'm against censorship, on the other I'm against internet bullying.
/r/FatPeopleHate was engaging in both.
In the end reddit is a private site that can do what it wants. Wikipedia removes things all the time and sites like 4chan remove all sorts of extremely offensive material.
I'm glad the mods of the hate oriented subreddits have been shadow banned, I actually think this shit storm is wonderful and I hope the reddit admins literally pull the plug and shut down. The FPH spammers are complete idiots, buying thousands of guilds and donating money directly to reddit and hurting their cause by vote brigading at the same time. They're sealing their fate.
This whole fiasco has shown the true face of reddit, just a whole bunch of (slightly below) average kids who don't deserve my attention.
I can't wait until reddit dies, but I have no idea where I'll go. I want something like reddit, but more open and transparent, and with a way for users to somehow remove mods.
Yep. I would post from time to time to point out incorrect "facts" they posted. It doesn't matter how well researched and reasoned your argument is. If you aren't towing the line, you are moderated and banned. They auto moderate and message any user who is voted down by the self-proclaimed shitlords.
Reddit has replaced RSS for me. HN is nice but hyper-curated and very specialized; though I prefer the HN voting system and algorithms over reddit's.
Reddit also has a massive advantage when it comes to companies/games/etc communicating with their fan-communities. It's an excellent medium for it as the type of vote-curation that happens there is great to sort topics of importance and the threaded comments are far better than what you would find on bulletin boards.
Overall, reddit has had a fantastic impact on the internet when it comes to communication, IMO. I hope that sticks.
I don't think there is one. I'm pretty sure censorship has a pretty specific connotation, but it's the only term in the ballpark of what is being accused.
Wikipedia has a stated goal, a public management team engaged in discussion and debate with their users, and something resembling accountability. Reddit has the Silicon Valley's most notorious gender-baiting troll as it's head, virtually zero interactions between the corporate side and the unpaid community managers, and no clear rules on what it does and doesn't allow.
Honestly, the writing should have been obviously on the wall when r/jailbait was banned. I think they could have made up reasonings that would have placated the userbase, but they failed to, and they handled the resulting outrage very poorly. I was sorta surprised that wasn't reddit's 'digg moment', but I thought that the HDCP controversy was Digg's, so maybe I'm just ahead of the wave.
You don't have to visit to get bullied. They were literally posting people's Facebook pages, images posted in other subs, and original photos they took themselves.
There are numerous incidents of harassment against other users on Reddit, and even off of Reddit. The admins said themselves they received numerous complaints.
Are you seriously trying to blame the victims of the bullying and suggest they disconnect from the internet..? I literally cannot comprehend where you're coming from.
You can't deny that they're engaging in bullying. They are literally posting pictures of the reddit mods and making fun of them. That's bullying.
A lot of fit people don't participate or enjoy FPH either. I couldn't imagine one of my college professors asking the fat kids to leave when another student starts bullying them.
If you pulled this kind of behavior on just about any college campus you would be asked to leave, this just shows the level of immaturity these people have.
My awesome team and I run Snapzu (http://snapzu.com), a reddit competitor/alternative and we've had a hell of a day making sure our servers held up and continue doing so. More and more redditors are getting fed up and getting more vocal and mass posting links to alternatives such as ours, along with Voat and Hubski and others in the comments sections.
It really seems like Reddit is trying to clean house to make room for advertising opportunities and sponsorships, but I doubt they were predicting such a backlash of this magnitude. Will be interesting how this develops, and however it does, we're definitely taking notes on what NOT to do in situations like this.
Clarification from the Reddit Admins on their announcement post indicate that they're banning subs where moderators either took no action or encouraged organized harassment (as in going to other subs or websites and actively harassing the person in question) as opposed to subs that just post awful things about people.
I've dealt with reddit's administrators from a moderator side before, and they can just shadowban moderators they don't like. It makes no sense to ban a subreddit for the actions of that subreddit's moderators when they can just remove the moderators that are the issue.
I suspect they wanted to ban certain subreddits, and "the subreddit has toxic moderators" is a good reason to give publicly. Nonetheless, they've always had policies for dealing with toxic moderators that don't involve removal of subreddits.
You'd think so, but they're banning any new sub that attempts to be a "new" /r/fatpeoplehate -- if it's not about "banning ideas", but "banning behaviour", then I find that somewhat at odds. I think there's a simpler answer: FPH ended up on the front-page of /r/all constantly, and the Imgur staff "doxxing" (I've heard right before they were banned there was something happening regarding harassing the imgur editors outside of Reddit, though I don't know how true it is) was enough to get the admins to pull the plug.
If you're monetising a website, and the most active and fasting growing sub on your website (aside from the defaults) is a subreddit dedicated to mocking fat people, I think that may make it a difficult sell.
Or, if you're monetizing a website and one of the largest hosts of your content (imgur) is being actively harassed by a minority of your users, you find a way to mend the insult.
It's becoming more clear that Reddit took action specifically because of the Imgur insult, and that makes a lot of sense from a business perspective. But from a wider perspective it looks very focused and targeted - not in a good way.
> Or, if you're monetizing a website and one of the largest hosts of your content (imgur) is being actively harassed by a minority of your users, you find a way to mend the insult.
It baffles me that people still have trouble differentiating Feminism as wanting women to be equal to men in the world AND the usual stupid more vocal minority.
I think a lot of people here on HN are feminist in the sense that we think women should be treated equally to men in a modern society.
I've been on reddit for 8 years, and lurked before that. The top submissions and comments have always, and consistently, been standard-issue PC/liberal in their overall view.
I've been on Reddit approximately that long, and I disagree. It's always been made up of people who like to think of themselves as liberal, in a group-solidarity, shared-identity sort of sense. But the conservative/reactionary undercurrents have been around for quite a while and have been growing with every passing year.
In the years since SJW turned from a meaningful term into a catch-all for anyone who advocates for social justice in any way other than qualifying lip service[1], the general reddit crowd has noticeably moved away from standard-issue PC/liberal to anglo-centric liberal. Systemic issues of injustice are portrayed as primarily matters of self-fulfilling prophecy. The protestant work ethic is heavily espoused for minorities, but it's all systemic issues when it comes to college grads having a hard time finding a job.
The same is true to a lesser degree[2] for many women's issues, though I hesitate to mention it because this community isn't immune either.
[1] Ex) "I hate racism as much as the next guy..."
The world view of the founders was pretty clearly "tech libertarianism" (incidentally, not a view I share), which, in the context of the site, meant a hands-off moderation policy, which allowed the site to deteriorate in many ways but flourish in many others.
I don't think this has anything to do with liberal vs conservative. Nor does outright bullying really have anything to do with "political correctness".
I know that /r/politics seems to lean heavily towards what might be termed "liberal" politics, but outside of that it really depends. Most of the subs I read aren't political at all. The nice thing about reddit is that you have some control over that.
When something that was previously (more or less) politically neutral takes a stance people get upset. Especially when there is vendor lock-in.
Some thought experiments:
Imagine if Comcast blocked access to all liberal sites.
Imagine if Microsoft word could was changed so only pro-liberal documents could be created. For extra fun imagine if people could be "shadowbanned" so all their files were silently deleted.
Imagine if Google could only be used to find websites that supported global warming.
Imagine if Facebook messages could only send "patriotic" messages (as determined by their moderators).
Imagine if Intel processors could only run non-violent games.
This may seem weird comparisons because when we think of forums, we think of moderators having the power. But reddit isn't a forum. Reddit is basically a site that hosts forums. And now it wont host some of them anymore. Not only will it stop hosting some of them. It stopped hosting them unexpectedly, with a self-righteous "fuck-you".
And yet subreddits like 'coonville' and 'GreatApes' still exist and continue shitting all over reddit. I know it makes my (black) wife feel welcomed when subreddits she frequents are slammed with the most virulent hate speech you can imagine.
People keep bringing up racist subs, but it is unclear what exactly they're trying to argue. Should Reddit not ban anything because they haven't banned everything?
I'd love to see them squish some of the subs mentioned, but ultimately today is just one day, and I'd prefer to see them take SOME action than sit around waiting for the day that they can sweep Reddit clean in one single swoop (which won't ever happen).
PS - The two subs you listed have under 5K readers combined. FPH had 150,000. I've never seen any racist sub on /r/all but FPH was bullying on the front page daily.
There's nothing wrong with them banning those ideas, they just shouldn't claim their not banning ideas.
I don't see why banning racist ideas would be so out there. Sure people are going to complain and leave, but aren't those like EXACTLY the people you want to leave?
This marks the beginning of the end of Reddit. It's been a long time coming and Reddit has become a huge promotional platform for pseudo user generated content submitted by shills and celebrities.
That site has been down all day. But frankly if they get all of the racists/fat haters/misogynists/etc then Reddit will be significantly better for it.
The site always had undertones of this stuff, but as the popularity grew these previously minority voices got louder and louder and harder to ignore until I myself don't spend a whole lot of time on Reddit now.
It was the fastest growing subreddit outside of the defaults, and by far the most active. Turns out there's a large contingent of people who seem to hate fat people, at least that's how it seems anyway
I'm speculating but it seems like an easy outlet for that "being offensive for its own sake" mindset you see sometimes in kids and young adults. I think it's part of growing up... It just happens that the Internet allows people to focus and concentrate that negative energy.
While that's likely part of it, that's not the entirety of things.
To be fair, I would wager that fatpeoplehate had its share of trolls, but I would definitely believe that the vast majority of its denizens were former fat people, and very frustrated at the obesity epidemic in the United States.
Frustration leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. You know the rest.
I speak here from some experience. Several members of my family are morbidly obese, with BMIs well north of 45.
For the average person, obesity starts at a BMI of 30.
More than a third of the population of the United States qualifies as obese. Obesity-related diseases are the leading cause of death, and the problem is getting worse.
There are growing social movements that promote obesity as a way of life. This is simply insane. Nobody would promote anorexia as positive, or smoking, or heroin.
Now, this would all be completely fine if it only impacted those that choose this lifestyle, but the problem impacts all of us, in the form of higher medical costs, greater danger for service personnel, and in the cost of infrastructure changes required to support the obese.
Every holiday, I got to watch as some of the people I grew up with eat themselves into an early grave. To listen to them complain about their latest weight-related medical problem. To hear them make excuses and blame other people as to why they are sick.
And then these same people would insult my spouse and I, because we control our diets and exercise regularly.
I do not want to live in a society where this is accepted or encouraged.
While I don't think that mocking fat people will solve the problem, I can understand how that particular community could grow so fast.
>There are growing social movements that promote obesity as a way of life. This is simply insane. Nobody would promote anorexia as positive, or smoking, or heroin.
I think FPH got created as a counter culture to these movements.
>I do not want to live in a society where this is accepted or encouraged.
While I don't think that mocking fat people will solve the problem, I can understand how that particular community could grow so fast.
I agree.
Rather than focusing on education and knowledge they resorted to insults and mockery.
I think it stems from the fact that obesity is a real problem, it takes decades from peoples lives and is costing us trillions of dollars. And, for the most part, it's a lifestyle induced disease. Yet there are still a lot of misconceptions.
People need help, they need knowledge. They don't need people being plain mean and ignorant.
> I'm speculating but it seems like an easy outlet for that "being offensive for its own sake" mindset you see sometimes in kids and young adults
Possibly, though theres /r/imgoingtohellforthis that literally aims for that exact "use-case", so whether FPH is the outlet for it I'm not sure? It's definitely possible though.
Reddit just put the world on notice that they are willing to become user babysitters, and historically this has never ended well for the company involved.
Because it was spilling out into other subreddits. I had FPH on a filter, but you could go to any other post with a photo of someone who was overweight and there'd be an upvoted comment calling them a "hambeast".
The idea is to make people who are being harassed on reddit feel safe[0]. This goal is something I think everyone agrees is a good goal. As a policy decision, I think it is pretty weird they started banning communities instead of people.
There are a lot of people on reddit and policing individual users would be a challenge. Would something like a "flag harassment" button have the same desired affect?
> This goal is something I think everyone agrees is a good goal
Depends. As it stands, making something a "safe space" is a super broad goal that has some very fuzzy edges. But then, I enjoy dissent and viewpoints at odds with my own, and it's a private company that needs to make money, so I can understand it.
Yes I agree. Everyone attaches their own meaning to that. I only mean it to be, a website where using it isn't going to get you needlessly harassed, doxed, threatened, etc. and when that kind of stuff happens, people don't find it acceptable.
This is clearly a growing pain for reddit. Something like "reddiquitte" only scales so much.
it is quite funny to see another innocuous post amidst all the vile and hateful posts.
"How do people even do this shit? (X-Post from /r/gtagifs) " (https://i.imgur.com/po4V0QW.gifv )
This is like dream come true for voat dot co. I highly doubt there is going to be mass migration like it was with Digg but Voat is going to get quite a few users in the near future for what it's worth.
In any case, Reddit has become a new mainstream site full of propaganda, censorship, shadowbanning, hand-picked news, etc. I've noticed a sharp decline in the last year or so.
It's not even their new policy, it just feels like it Reddit got big enough to finally join any other mass media source of information, not in a good way.
Meh. IMHO, the real conspiracy here is Reddit's attempting to make it more palatable for advertisers so they can at least make an attempt at making money.
I feel like it's inevitable (and not necessarily wrong) considering the content of the thread. The discussion is about Reddit banning some subreddits due to their behavior. SRS is larger than all of the banned subs besides FPH, and exists solely to mock and harass other redditors.
Personally, I think they should all probably be banned if the site is going to be moderated in this manner.
seems like this thread is inevitable on HN. I see no harm in discussing it within this thread. It hasn't been "brought to HN" until it's getting in the way of other things.
They aren't banning behavior, they're banning the expression of certain ideas.
It would be one thing if the group was about beating up fat people, but posting comments online about them is clearly under the ideals of expression.
If they want to ensure it's behavior and not ideas they should get a judge to rule on whether the expression would be constitutionally protected.
And yes, as a private entity it is their prerogative to ban certain ideas on their site, however, they should just be honest about it, they are limiting speech in a manner that would likely be unconstitutional if they were a government entity, aka. they are abridging freedom of expression.
I do not know about this specific case (looking at the subreddits I truly doubt it is an example) but there are examples of systems using anti-harrassment as a means to censor particular groups, links, and ideas.
With a title like "'Troll hunting' algorithm could make web a better place" (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-04/14/google-algori...) this algorithm seems like a true boon. It's only slightly suspicious (and can easily be explained away) that two of the three websites used in its study were political websites. You'd have to be pretty zany to leap to the conclusion that the paper had anything to do with censorship.
It would look worse if one of its co-authors (Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil) received funding from the DoD to study the propagation of information through social media online (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.01383.pdf) as part of DARPA SMISC - a strategic communications (DoD term for propaganda) research group that studies how information flows on social media and how to direct and disrupt it.
Many researchers take grants from all over though, and anything in this area of study is likely to get investment from the DoD. So still it's more reasonable to think that, since he works in that area, of course he will receive DoD funding.
Yet it was posted with 22 likes to NATO's Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence (https://www.facebook.com/StratComCOE), a Facebook wall also contains a review of a book called "The Weaponization of Social Media" and announces its participation in a conference on “Cyberattacks and Propaganda: the Battlefield of Future”.
As evidenced (again) as recently as this week by a group of people who run an anti-TPP website, there is an inter-website system for blocking posts to certain content (https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/38pmg8/hey_redd...) - Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, etc all simultaneously blocked this website. Whether this was an error or not (it probably was), it points out there is a centralized system for blocking content.
Both the Facebook emotion experiment and the Facebook vote experiment had ties to funding to the DoD (and Air Force though blurbs about funding from the Air Force, which handles cyber in the US, was erased from the academic's page when there was public attention; it was reported to be a clerical error).
This is not to say that this is used inside the US to block US contibuted content. While the history of the United States Government in applying strategic communication and information support to US audiences has been slippery, and the Smith-Mundt Act (anti-propaganda law) was recently weakened under the justification that global interconnectedness of conversation, news and social media makes it difficult to prevent US propaganda intended for foreign audiences from making it back home.
The new CEO of Reddit is on the board of a Washington Defense Thinktank. This anecdote doesn't imply anything. But it does mean that you should be asking Reddit and its CEO hard questions, you should be skeptical of intentions, and you should demand that Reddit - like all other companies that own your communications and socialization - keep themselves to the highest possible standards.
I truly hope that this will have one of two outcomes:
1. End of Ellen Pao's CEO term
2. End of Reddit.
I find only these two outcomes desirable, because the third one is chilling free speech in the internet, the one that Ellen Pao is gunning for.
