
A petition to remove Ellen Pao as Reddit CEO: 100,000 signatures in 3 days - drdoom
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/petition-remove-ellen-pao-reddit-172519026.html
======
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9832474](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9832474)

~~~
rory096
Is this post on that thread accurate?
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9832812](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9832812)

~~~
dang
Not sure exactly what you're asking, but the post was flagged by users and
penalized by moderators, probably for the same reason: the story had already
had a major thread on HN. Also, petitions have traditionally been treated as
off topic here.

~~~
studentrob
It is too bad HN will not support an ongoing discussion among interested HN
readers about an ongoing issue over arguably one of YC's most successful
projects. I understand splattering the front page with > 1 link is too much.

However, one persistent headline among 20 would not bother most people (aside
from the powers that be who may want to quell unrest, of course). I missed
earlier discussions and only came in during this one. I think the debate over
how to create a successful social network, and how and where to limit free
speech online while managing a large community, ought to be of interest to
anyone with skin in the game. And that thread had plenty of upvotes and
comments to survive beyond two hours.

~~~
dang
This story has had major threads on HN, including on the front page right now
[1]. Our interest is not in quellage but in keeping the front page
substantive, i.e. keeping HN HN.

Big drama always brings many copycat posts and follow-ups. Most need to be
treated as duplicates or drama will fill the front page, which is not what HN
is for. Where to draw the line? Our answer is, have a major thread on
(hopefully) the most substantive version of a story, plus a new thread when
there is significant new information [2]. That's the best way we know of to
balance the different factors, though we're open to a better way if anyone
suggests it.

It's true that it's common for a user to miss earlier discussions, as you
mention, but that's a problem with HN in general. No one sees all the threads.
We try to point to previous discussions when we notice them, and many HN users
helpfully do so as well (greenyoda and ColinWright practically deserve medals
for it).

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9840805](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9840805)

2\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9827903](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9827903)

------
AdeptusAquinas
If they want to remove her as CEO they should leave Reddit, and hope that the
loss of their traffic is enough economic pressure to call for her dismissal.
Petitions are just a way to whine without committing to anything.

~~~
msandford
Well, there are good odds that the investors in Reddit will see this and might
consider taking corrective action. Reddit is still a growing site, so if
people start leaving that might leave Reddit with growth, albeit at a slower
rate. That's not necessarily all that meaningful to investors. A slight
reduction in growth rate. But huge numbers of people saying "there needs to be
a change" and signing a petition might actually be more productive. Since it's
a visible number rather than an invisible side effect.

~~~
AdeptusAquinas
Perhaps, though a quick look at
[http://www.reddit.com/about](http://www.reddit.com/about) says that 100k
isn't really a huge number for them. For now at least, its a text-book
definition of a 'vocal minority'.

~~~
msandford
Yeah I'm not saying that 100k is definitely enough to get her removed or
anything. But if 100k people saying "this sucks" is meaningless, imagine how
much more meaningless just quitting and saying nothing is.

I'm not saying that these people will accomplish their goal. But they're
definitely stirring up bad publicity for Reddit. That's not a great way to get
a CEO fired, but bad publicity is a lot worse for Reddit than losing 100k
users.

------
eridius
I'm kind of appalled at how all the stories I've seen relating to this are
giving credence to the various claims made here, such as how Reddit has
"entered into a new age of censorship", without even making the slightest
attempt to contextualize or explain how _absolutely bat-shit nutty it is to
make that claim_. Reddit enforced its rules and shut down a few vile
subreddits that were explicitly and unrepentantly harassing people. That is
unambiguously a great move by Reddit. But a lot of people are suddenly
screaming "censorship" and, if you read nothing but the news stories, you'd
come away with the idea that those screaming "censorship" are right.

This actually feels a bit reminiscent of GamerGate, which for a while was able
to have news outlets report on them as if their stated goal of ethics in game
journalism was actually what it was about.

~~~
kristofferR
> That is unambiguously a great move by Reddit

If that were the case nobody would care and protest about it. You could argue
that the move was wrong and you could argue that the move was correct.
However, it was clearly not _unambiguously a great move_. :)

~~~
eridius
Fair point. Let me qualify that: From the perspective of anyone who is not
afflicted with John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory[1], this is
unambiguously a great move.

Sadly, there's a very vocal set of reddittors who have the worst case of the
GIFT I've ever seen. These are the same people who think that it's perfectly
ok to wage sustained campaigns of harassment against other people, who think
it's quite alright to post vile, incredibly hurtful things to r/fatpeoplehate
and r/shitniggerssay (or whatever it was called) and many other subreddits
devoted to hatred, and who think that an appropriate response to a few
subreddits getting banned is to start publicly labelling Ellen Pao with every
single gendered, misogynistic insult they can think of (while claiming that,
no, they're not sexist or misogynist, no sir no way).

[1] [http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/](http://www.penny-
arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/)

~~~
kristofferR
I disagree again. You don't have to be a douchebag that posts vile things to
believe that the free speech slippery slope argument may be merited.

It's relatively easy to either only remove illegal content or to have very
strict moderation (ala Facebook). It's much harder to only remove certain
kinds of "offensive material" without removing too much.

~~~
eridius
But the banned subreddits had _nothing to do with the content on them_. This
was not even remotely about "offensive material". This was purely about the
subreddits engaging in campaigns of harassment against other people. That's
not a free speech issue in the slightest. There's no slippery slope here. The
only people who should be upset about this are either people who don't
understand what happened (which seems to apply to you), or people who think
they are entitled to harass other people online without being punished (which
is, sadly, a very large number of people on Reddit).

~~~
renata
Then why did replacement subreddits with explicit rules against harassment and
measures to prevent it get banned?

~~~
eridius
This is the first I've heard of there being explicit rules and measures on the
replacement subs. My understanding is that they were banned because they
represented an attempt at ban evasion (which is itself a serious violation of
reddit policy and always has been), but I admit I haven't done much research
on the replacement subs because I didn't think it was particularly important.

------
sudioStudio64
[https://youtu.be/wBIC8JTQMMQ](https://youtu.be/wBIC8JTQMMQ) \- He Man Woman
Haters Club

~~~
kristofferR
This whole spectacle began because a beloved woman a lot of subreddits
depended on was fired.

To claim that this is about hating Pao just because she is female is absurd,
it has probably more to do with her obviously not understanding reddit at all.

~~~
msandford
"We hate women! How dare you fire one!" Not exactly a cohesive portrayal of
bigots.

~~~
sudioStudio64
You are so right and clever! What a clever boy you are! I'm firmly put in my
place. Thank you for clearly showing the truth of the moment. Oh, oh, how
wrong I was.

Are you sure that there weren't any petitions to get rid of her before this
weekends thing?

