556
557

We apologize (self.announcements)

ekjp[A] が 投稿x13

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]YankeeQuebec 58ポイント59ポイント  (15子コメント)

Over on change.org there was a successful petition to strip the NFL of it's non-profit status. This petition had about 400k signatures, and the NFL voluntarily gave up their non profit status. During an average month, almost 400 million people in the US will watch an NFL game. That means that with 0.1% of NFL viewers, the NFL changed their entire corporate structure, which will cost them tens of millions of dollars.

The petition to remove you from your position, or for you to step down, at this moment has about 175k signatures. With about 19 million unique visitors a month, 1%, or 10 times the percentage of reddit users signed a petition to have you step down, or fired, than got the NFL to change their corporate structure.

Since you are CEO of an internet company, you should know that only about 1% of the people on the internet, actually do something, meaning that the petition for you to step down has significantly more supporters than it looks.

Why this is important, is that an extremely small vocal minority successfully petitioned a multibillion dollar corporation to change their corporate tax structure which will cost them dearly, where as an even larger minority has called for you to step down, or be fired. Here you are just pandering to us, and trying to say that you said something else.

Ms. Pao, your comments were extremely rude to the people who make this site what it is. They show how completely out of touch you are with this community, of which you make your salary off of. And frankly, show how vain, and disconnected you are.

Here is the petition for you to step down or be removed.

[–]autowikibot 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

1% rule (Internet culture):

In Internet culture, the 1% rule is a rule of thumb pertaining to participation in an internet community, stating that only 1% of the users of a website actively create new content, while the other 99% of the participants only lurk. Variants include the 1-9-90 rule (sometimes 90–9–1 principle or the 89:10:1 ratio), which states that in a collaborative website such as a wiki, 90% of the participants of a community only view content, 9% of the participants edit content, and 1% of the participants actively create new content. A related observation is that 1% of users generate the majority of revenue in free-to-play games.

Image i - Pie chart showing the proportion of lurkers, contributors and creators under the 90–9–1 principle

Relevant: Machinima Island | Netocracy | Pareto principle

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Call Me

[–]Pave_Low 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

Sooooooo, you really think the NFL gave up it's non-profit status because of the change.org petition and not, say, pressure from the United States Congress?

If so, I think you should become a pirate to slow down global warming.

[–]YankeeQuebec -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Over the past 55 years, the NFL has gotten exclusive treatment from congress to operate how it does, including laws specifically allowing them to violate anti-trust laws, and having special non-profit sub categories created for sports leagues. And, from that time, there has been pressure to remove its non-profit status, mainly coming from Democrats. If you are aware of US politics, our Congress has a firm majority of Republicans in both houses, who don't really care about the NFL's tax status, so there is zero pressure coming from Congress in regards to the NFL.

Either way, according to the WAPO, the NFL looses money, and them switching to for-profit status really doesn't mean anything. And, actually, in many ways they do get a better deal as accounting for a for-profit is much easier than compliance as a non-profit.

The only reason the NFL changed it's status, was because of an extremely small amount of people spreading the word, which then got picked up by numerous media outlets, and further spread the cause, which is exactly what is happening right now.

[–]Pave_Low 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

The reason the NFL changed its status is so that it can take its books private, instead of having to make all the disclosures of a non-profit and to remove leverage that Congress previously had over the NFL. This is the same reason that MLB did away with its tax-exempt status.

And yes, there was political pressure. The NFL wanted to make Coburn go away. They didn't give a rat's ass about an internet petition.

[–]swampsparrow 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

NO DUDE IT'S BECAUSE SOMEONE SIGNED A FUCKING PETITION GET YOUR GOD DAMN FACTS STRAIGHT

[–]Pave_Low 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh. . . . shit. . . I'm an idiot.

I didn't realize it could be typed out with caplocks. That must mean its true. Sorry my bad :-(

[–]jfong86 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

change.org had very little to do with why the NFL changed its non-profit status. If the NFL hadn't already been planning to do it, change.org would have had zero effect. They changed their non-profit status because the accounting is easier, they don't have to release their financial information to the public, and they can hide CEO/executive salaries. It might cost them tens of millions in taxes but their revenue is $9-10 billion per year, so tens of millions is not even 1% of their revenue. You're acting like change.org was the only reason, it most definitely was not. (By the way, you said 400 million people in the US watch the NFL but your link says 202 million and the population of the US is 320 million.)

[–]Brownt0wn_ 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

Did you read what she said? She was referring to the people who called her a cunt as the "vocal minority".

Do you still think the vocal minority is correct and she should recognize that? Because if so that is some incredible hatred that I doubt you'd embody if you weren't a pseudonym on an online forum.

[–]YankeeQuebec 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Did you read what she said? She was referring to the people who called her a cunt as the "vocal minority".

Of course I read what she said. And, she said this.

and that most of Reddit users were not interested in what unfolded over the past 48 hours.

Judging from the site, you barely see anything that supports her position, yet she make a sweeping generalization that most don't care. Again using my analogy, most people that watch the football games don't care if the NFL was non-profit, yet they decided to heed the calls of an extremely small minority of fans. Here we have Pao completely ignoring, and belittling the people who actually use this site.

[–]Dashing_Snow 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

She talked about the past 48 hours which was the mods revolting she was not talking about FPH.

[–]beenwaitingforthisda 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Clicked the link, the number is still growing. It's up to 187K now, will probably be at 200K soon.

[–]helm -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

The signature number does correspond quite well to the number of (former) subscribers to /r/fatpeoplehate. Coincidence? I think not.

[–]ClutchHunter 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I signed. I'm not a FPH guy.

Coincidence? I think not.

Stupid comment.

[–]helm 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I admit there are probably a few people who are angry about Victoria getting fired, too. But the FPH users and "Ellen Pao must resign" people have overlapped since she started.

[–]ClutchHunter 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Definitely, I'm one of the latter. I don't like FPH but I hate how the banning and "censorship" isn't applied equally across subreddits, opinions and ideologies. That's what I hate about where Reddit is heading. I also dislike Pao not just for that but for the bullshit she made up for that lawsuit she lost. Now add on the added attempts at commercialisation, lack of mod and userbase interaction, et cetera.

It's hard to be positive about her or this site anymore in any way.