Looks like they just came on board as Reddit debuted the new user profile format [0]. I just got a message to turn it on as a user this past week. It seems like it'll be a nice feature for not just users, but brands/organizations as well. I hope it sticks to user engagement/meta-type posts (IAMAs) rather than being an account that acts as an auto-submitter of WaPo headlines to r/news/politics/worldnews.
That said, one of the challenges of having an official Reddit account that constantly engages with users (it's been actively commenting and replying to users), I would imagine, would be having to be in IAMA mode 24/7. That's fun until something a controversial question/challenge comes up, in which case hours/days of silence will be seen as an admission of guilt/coverup (see r/AMADisasters).
I happen to have a spreadsheet of all Reddit AMA backfires (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DTCRqeQvjOZAyngC31kn...), and the common thread among AMA disasters is the original poster being genuinely unaware that they might be received negatively (or they are just trolls). I don't think that will be the case with the WaPo, anyways.
AMADisasters was the reason I made the list. (it turns out the mods would not let me post it there because it would make finding AMADisasters too easy)
> I hope it sticks to user engagement/meta-type posts (IAMAs) rather than being an account that acts as an auto-submitter of WaPo headlines to r/news/politics/worldnews.
A friend of mine is the lead mod for the /u/washingtonpost account, and his primary goal for that account is engagement. Even as far as submissions go, they are trying to create content crafted for reddit, such as those news rollups they're experimenting with. His personal goal is for the account to become like the Wendy's Twitter of Reddit--a bit more irreverent and conversational, and willing to joke around with users. So far he's gotten a generally warm reception, especially when he pops up in unexpected places like TIL.
Part of the opportunity for them with reddit is that it's a bit less ephimeral than Twitter or Facebook, which creates new opportunities. As long as a piece of content is relevant, it stays on top of people's front pages, and WaPo can jump into the thread to answer popular questions, which then everyone can see. In a way, this actually gives them an incentive to not auto-post and let stuff rise organically, so they can engage in the right places.
As an avid redditor, I really feel like they have the right idea (it helps he's into the same things as reddit in general) and I feel like good things are gonna come of this over the next few months.
> That said, one of the challenges of having an official Reddit account that constantly engages with users (it's been actively commenting and replying to users), I would imagine, would be having to be in IAMA mode 24/7
Is that really different from Twitter?
At first, for the first organization that does it, maybe. I have to believe that over time people will get over organizations' inability to respond immediately to things on Reddit just because it's Reddit.
Yeah, I think community conventions are definitely a factor. But main differentiator will be the tone of the account, and the more personal/thoughtful it is (as it is now), the more users will expect it to be forthcoming when there's some controversy to answer for. I think interface plays a big deal too, though. Twitter threaded conversations/replies are still quite difficult to follow, and individual queries are easy to ignore/miss. Whereas in Reddit, top-upvoted replies (which is frequently calling-out-your-bullshit type questions) are going to be the first thing users see when reading your threads by default.
As a news organization, I would hope they understand the implications of PR and how silence can be very damning. I can't see them falling for it especially considering how many times they have sen others do it and it not go very well for them.
Hmm, seems like they don't quite understand how Reddit is supposed to work. I mean yeah, they're not breaking the rules yet. Their articles are mostly being posted to their own profile rather than subreddits (though the way it's going now, the 10% rule will be shattered sooner rather than later).
But they're making the usual company mistake on the site. Treating communities as a pure advertising platform rather than a place to engage with the members on their own merits.
They could be commenting on threads that relate to their industry or topics they've wrote about with interesting answers or sharing things that help make them appear as more 'in touch' with the public (like say, Sonic the Hedgehog and Wendy's do on Twitter). Or moderating a Washington Post subreddit where they feature submissions they think help out their publication.
But they're not. They're just advertising the site endlessly on their user page, and making sure every post they make outside said page is an ad for their publication.
Honestly, they're lucky Reddit is going down Facebook/Twitter/whoever's route and trying to be a company friendly advertising platform at the expense of a community or community platform. Otherwise this kind of behaviour would have got them kicked out near immediately, especially on an old school forum or mailing list.
I'm going to dissent here. I went to their page and it does not feel like one big "go to the website" WaPo advertisement.
They're responding and engaging with users, even negative ones, they're posting stories, and they're giving an insiders view to the newsroom that they aren't offering anywhere else.
I mean, here they are offering exclusive access to journalists for questions and posting exclusive newsroom info, and your criticism is that they're not posting stupid jokes on twitter like Wendy's?
If it's all the same to you, I'll take the journalists acting like journalists instead of teenage social media managers!
Admittedly, I didn't focus so much on the comments as the submissions there. Their comments are certainly more in line with what you'd want from a presence on a site like this, given how they answer other people's questions and all that.
But I feel both submissions and comments are important here, and in both cases a brand should do more than post their own work for readers.
Huh, interesting. Guess it's pretty logical, given how awkward the rule was (a promoter could easily get round it just by submitting a bunch of low effort stories for every one of their own they post) and how it kind of punished creators more than you'd expect.
Hopefully this means more mods will take a good look at someone's profile and work out how much they're actually contributing to the community rather than running a bot against their submissions and counting them.
I'd prefer reddit die and something replace it. I go to the website every day, mostly for sports and gaming subreddits, but as a platform, it's hopelessly mismanaged.
They're technically lost. Look at the trouble they've had making a proper phone app (they still don't have a good one). The user interface is lacking at best (as evidenced by RES being needed to use the site for a long time now). People have been asking for better moderation tools for nearly a decade. The recent CSS dustup shows they don't even understand how people use their site. Then there's the lack what would be super helpful features (the ability to do a subreddit poll, vote for moderators, and access more than your last 100 posts easily).
The leadership is completely tone-deaf to the userbase. Just look at the drama when they fired that AMA mod. Many times various CEOs from Ellen Pao to Steve Huffman have acted more like spoiled 6-year-olds than chief executives. That's before you start talking about them pushing their politics on the site.
And spoiled 6-year-old isn't too far off from the truth. Keep in mind Steve Huffman and Alexis Ohanian were essentially gifted their success. They applied to y-combinator with no idea of what to make. They were given the idea for reddit. They couldn't make it work so they had Aaron Swartz forced on them (in what was by all accounts a strained relationship). Aaron fixed the site and made it what it is today then they all got paid. And those two have just been coasting on that ever since. It's nearly a "born on third and thought they hit a triple" situation.
If I were a VC I'd be throwing money at a reddit replacement. It's not hard to envision a better platform, it just has a high barrier to entry because you're likely not going to be profitable for years while you grow your userbase. The payoff is huge though. Reddit is one of the largest websites in the world and makes next to no profit because of its management.
Personally I've been using reddit for about a decade. It seems more or less the same site it always has been just a lot bigger and with some incremental improvements. 99% of the user base has no clue about who most of the people in your post are, they aren't up in arms about anything, they only care that the site continues to work, which it does.
Additionally, I cannot see how a competitor can possibly compete with reddit, reddit offers everything most people want without charging anything, without excessive advertising and without demanding a lot of personal information. How do you build a competitor that matches those criteria and then makes a ton of money?
>Additionally, I cannot see how a competitor can possibly compete with reddit, reddit offers everything most people want without charging anything, without excessive advertising and without demanding a lot of personal information. How do you build a competitor that matches those criteria and then makes a ton of money?
The answer is simply "build what Reddit was like 5 years ago". It's plain to see that Reddit is on a downward spiral - their product has been getting worse and will continue to get worse. Same goes for the community. Reddit is showing all of the signs of a dying platform, if you study the historical lifecycles of web properties it matches quite well. Unfortunately, whatever comes up to replace it is probably going to suffer the same fate.
A competitor can compete by building a platform that handles user load & doesn't shill out for advertisers. And one that focuses on actually improving the site's functionality (search, anyone?) instead of user profiles which don't even make sense really given reddit's original purpose.
I know it's hard to imagine, but there are many sides to these stories. Things really aren't so black and white. You really have no idea just how hard these guys worked or the struggles they had to go through. I'd recommend you read Alexis's post from back in 2010: http://alexisohanian.com/keep-calm-carry-on-what-you-didnt-k....
Reddit was born out of the first Y Combinator batch in 2005. This batch turned out to be an exceptional group of people who helped make Y Combinator into Y Combinator. But it was far from a forgone conclusion that they would be successful or that Reddit would one day become a top five website on the internet.
My experience with Alexis and Steve is that they're extremely generous, helpful, and have set the tone for the "pay it forward" spirit of Y Combinator's alumni network. I'd encourage you to wish them the best of luck instead of hoping someone takes them down.
I don't disagree with the idea that Reddit is mismanaged, but isn't "born on third and thought they hit a triple" a hyperbolic way to describe the success of one of the top 10 websites in the U.S.? From introducing the concept of subreddits, to actually profiting off of Reddit Gold, to a distributed moderation team (that when it works, works well) there are plenty of places they succeeded. That doesn't just simply happen.
The commenter you are replying to is making the claim that Aaron Schwartz did all of the work that made Reddit one of the largest websites in the world. That's why he describes Steve and Alexis as "Being born on third."
The problem is building a viable alternative community wise. That's what Voat.co tried to do and look where they are now.
Reddit's leadership is beyond terrible- anyone remember their CEO shadow-editing users' posts? Where even Pao commented on it? Except no one cared because it was in /r/the_donald.
Ever since Reddit made upvotes / downvotes hidden, and started fuzzing upvotes, it started going downhill rapidly.
Why? Because it's basically become an advertising platform using the default / larger subs. Just follow /r/hailcorporate to see.
> The problem is building a viable alternative community wise. That's what Voat.co tried to do and look where they are now.
Voat had a very specific adverse selection problem. Whenever a community is formed in reaction to viewpoint discrimination[1] move towards a stance of active moderation against certain viewpoints, your community is going to (initially) consist of a few principled, marketplace-of-ideas true believes and then a whole ton of the worst elements of the viewpoints being discriminated against. Or as I heard it put recently: "If you establish a witch-hunt-free zone, you'll attract tons of actual witches".
The suggestion upthread here has no such downside. If anything, the better comparison would be Reddit vs Digg, back in the day. Digg had a far better network (and corresponding network effects) back in the day, but Reddit kept plugging away being quietly competent while Digg kept making changes that frustrated the userbase and over time pushed the people who cared the most about quality of conversation to another network. This is the exact _opposite_ problem that Voat had: the sample that was on the smaller site was higher-quality which allowed Reddit to hum along and continually gain users until Digg collapsed and Reddit got a flood of users.
[1] I mean this in the descriptive sense, not the sense with a negative connotation
Yeah, it's unfortunate what happened with Voat. Eventually what happened to Digg will happen to Reddit. Even now people are questioning things like the new profiles and the direction Reddit is taking. I agree, and I've even thought about writing an alternative platform, but I'm worried about the exact same thing with Voat happening.
I'd argue its current success is because there's no site quite like it in design. We used to have digg and reddit, until digg redesigned and users jumped ship to 'an alternative'. Now, there really isn't a good alternative. The only one I even know of is voat, which seems to be a somehow worse clone, filled with the hate of those banned from more traditional places. And that's failing, too.
I agree with parent comment, a reddit like idea with a tech refresh, and less toxic leadership, would be successful. But as acknowledged, it would take time to grow its user base.
ever since the Hiatt(s)[0] (Fred Hiatt and his wife, Margaret Shapiro ) took over editorial position on Wapo. The paper has become a neoconservative/neoliberal operation.
Bill Moyer did a nice episode showing the disproportionate number of report Wapo did in pushing fro a war in Iraq [1].
Among notable neoconservatives/neoliberals working at the post and using it as a pulpit are Robert Kagan [2] who worked on the "Project for the New American Century" that became the blueprint of Iraq war agenda.
For me the nail in the coffin against the Post was when they used an unknown research firm to push for a neo-mccarthyism Russian connection to over 200 blogs and publishers [4],[5].
It was interesting to see how much of the media was cheering the cruise missile strike in Syria. I think socially and economically WaPo is very liberal but for some reason most of the media loves almost anything to do with war.
I actually found the Washington Post's coverage of Iraq to be better than the mainstream media in general (though still not great). They would sometimes print articles like "Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq"[1] (which, if I remember correctly, was a front page article). I don't recall seeing that level of skepticism from the New York Times or cable news.
Yeah, it's kind of become the Breitbart of the left... not that the left really needed such a thing =( I don't think the defence to propaganda should be more propaganda, and I'm ashamed of "my side" resorting to it. It's made me really cynical.
Is it really that bad? I'm not American so perhaps I missed the decline, I've only noticed them breaking a number of stories recently (previous month for example) that all seem fairly credible, albeit often via anonymous sources.
I admit I can't discern the difference between the dozen WAPO or NYT articles I've read in the previous fortnight, for instance.
Erm, the Obama administration were offering the information in the expectation of getting something in return, having considered the potential risks involved. Trump just let slip some random bit of classified information, which he did not have Israel's permission to share, because he is a moron.
Well, good journalism would necessitate including the President Obama facts as background for the Trump piece. It is the same context - US President, Syria, Russians, classified info - less than 1 year earlier.
Also, it does change the perception of the story. As someone who has followed the Syrian civil war somewhat closely, I get the sense that the US has repeatedly tried to "cooperate" with Russia on Syria (while putting Ukraine on the back burner). In other words, the US - not a democratic or republican president - has a policy of constructive engagement. That changes the story - it is about cool academic cucumber handling one way, smarmy braggadocio salesman handling it a different way.
There is no parallel between the two cases, so it would not be good journalism to artificially draw one. The problem with what Trump did isn't that he shared classified information, it's that he did so (i) without the permission of the ally from whom the information was obtained [1] and (ii) without properly thinking through the consequences (or most likely even realising that he was doing it).
"Facts pertaining to terrorism and airline safety", in Trump's own words.
>And according to who?
People present at the meeting with the Russian ambassador in the White House. Sources in the US and Israeli intelligence communities who had to deal with the fallout.
No, this is how it is reported. The context is a hostile press, which he snubs in general. Trump did not answer the question.
Who asked Trump if he leaked classified information, in which interview? Anything specific? Or selective reporting?
> He was asked if he leaked classified information and responded by defending his right to do that
He was defending his right to [release] classified information? He does have that right, but:
"I have the absolute right to [share] facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety"
I can't see the mention of "classified" in that particular statement.
So to summarise; the press claimed Trump gave the Russians classified information - Trump nor McMaster has confirmed or denied this. The press heavily imply this means their original claims are right, but again, the burden is on the press to prove their original claim, by their original source; you don't just get that as a reward for making unverified claims. My original point is no one has gone on record to affirm it, it's just insinuation games.
No he didn't - I notice you totally ignored the questions and statements in my last post(s).
Trump did not answer to the allegations made. You quote the tweet yourself, and it does not address "classified" information, you're assuming that it is, and hence putting words in Trump's mouth. you don't know.
Trumps tweets aren't addressed to anyone, nor reference anything as response, so it is false that they were "directly in response". The tweets don't even mention the word 'classified'. If you believe otherwise - prove it.
I guess it's possible he's just mashing the keyboard randomly, but leaving that possibility aside, the tweets only make sense as response to the allegation that he shared classified information.
There are no names on the record for the Obama story either. Why would you expect there to be? Of course people are not going to go on the record talking about the content of private and highly sensitive meetings.
"McMaster says that 'at no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed.' But The Post's reporting doesn't say that they were. Instead, the report states clearly only that Trump discussed an Islamic State plot and the city where the plot was detected by an intelligence-gathering partner. Officials worried that this information could lead to the discovery of the methods and sources involved, but it didn't say Trump discussed them."
> McMaster refused to reveal details of the conversation
You don't get rewarded with verified information for publishing fake news. The burden is on the journalist to verify their sources' information. And if they can't, to not publish.
The press manufacture loaded questions faster than the administration could answer them - but that's not their job. If you don't agree, then can you first tell everyone why they should listen to you considering you still haven't stopped beating you wife? [0]
[0] according to official sources close to foldr.
> Officials worried that..
Yet more insidious 'Officials'.
So, returning to my original point: who has gone on record to say what Trump said?
Presumably no one since anyone in a position to reveal such privileged information would be liable for doing so? So all "well he didn't deny it" double-speak and insinuation, from a press starved of information, and hence resorting to punitive speculation.
No-one is going to go on record regarding the contents of a private meeting between the US President and the Russian ambassador, and no-one has. It is pointless to keep asking this question.
It wouldn't be "verified" if people went on the record either. Going on the record isn't some kind of magical truth serum. People can lie on the record or off it.
No, but you could weigh the information against the source/context. You can lie off record much easier, since there is less likelihood of damage to reputation.
That's a tangent anyway, if there is no verification, the only value a statement has is the authority and sincerity of the person who says it: we have neither that, nor do we even know the context (we have just the words, or interpreted statement - it's easy to cherry-pick those).
I guess you think the WP shouldn't have reported Watergate either.
"Executive Editor Ben Bradlee later recalled that many people wondered “how the Post dared
ride over the constant denials of the president of the United States and the attorney
general” as well as top presidential aides. Bradlee replied that the Post knew its information
was correct. Leads from Deep Throat as well as other well-protected sources consistently
checked out. Tapes of Nixon’s conversations show that The Washington Post was right."
I guess you've run out of things to say given this cherry-picked tangent.
> Leads from Deep Throat as well as other well-protected sources consistently checked out
I admit, I don't know much about water-gate, or if the following DW[0] paragraph is true:
"An anonymous source was not enough during Watergate. Without a second source to confirm, The Washington Post would not publish anything, even if it came from the credible Deep Throat."
>Anonymity is only required when there is one source.
Not clear what you mean by this. The WP used multiple anonymous sources for many of its Watergate stories.
>If they are multiple independent, unbiased sources, that is different.
The current stories about Trump are based on multiple sources. What gives you the idea that they stem from a single source? After all, Trump’s administration is one of the leakiest in living memory.
The US has a process for sharing intelligence whereby the intelligence community runs through a long list of concerns, redacts things that are too secret, protects sources and methods, protects allies and relationships, protects national interests, etc, and makes intelligently informed release decisions based on a mature review process.
Donald Trump blurted out Israeli-sourced active-asset-in-the-field top secret code word intelligence WITHOUT following the declassification/sharing protocol precedent, performing analysis, redaction, or doing even the merest hint of due process at all. -- And he did that in a fit of braggadocio, "I have the best sources, the best intel, such as..."
He's entitled to do that. To be careless and crass and a braggart with our most trusted and important secrets.
But we're entitled to criticize such craven carelessness.
See, even the language is as biased as in the Pravda in its heyday.
There are no public logs that show how the discussion advanced, but there is a heavy push by the Leftist media to portray and spin the exchange of information in the light that fits their narrative. There is also absolutely no reason to believe that Trump doesn't want something in return. The two stories are almost identical, but spun in entirely different ways which shows the blatant stench of bias.
Upvotes aren't an accurate representation of users. The higher a post's score, the more upvotes it needs to increase.
For example, a post with a score of 7 would increase by 1 every time it receives an upvote, but may need 10 or 15 upvotes to increase by another point once it gets over 1000 points (made up numbers).
A few months ago, the admins made a change to the algorithm to allow posts to gain much more points than before. Now, a post gets 1 point per upvote until, say, 10,000 upvotes, after which it only needs 5 upvotes per point.
There was a point where after 6 years on Tumblr, when we started cracking thousand likes on a post. Then came when there were 100k likes on posts. Reddit reached that terminal velocity around year 8.
>After 10 years it's now as important to kids as Facebook.
Are there some stats on demographics? I know it was cool for kids like 10 years ago, but did the demographics just shift with the initial age group or are they still actively getting teenagers?
Interesting, imho this clearly goes into the Twitter direction of following certain accounts, not "thematic subgroups".
Not sure if a widespread use of this would encourage my reddit usage, I usually visit certain subreddits for certain topic - and that not very often. But then again following tweetstorms and hashtags on Twitter is pretty much useless to me, that's why I follow certain people.
Looking at the comments on some on those stories, it feels like they are being swarmed by the pro-Trump accounts that permeates through a lot of reddit in an organized manner. I wonder what step online communities can do to protect against such brigading meant to alter and direct opinions, without sacrificing the freedom they offer their user to have an opinion and discuss it.
Machine learning for automatic fact correction seems like a nice answer, until you realize it would definitely go wrong, or be used to control opinion in an even stronger way.
Interesting. As an outsider (didn't vote for Trump or Clinton), Reddit seems decidedly organized against the Trump supporters on that site. From what I can tell, even the admins have made core changes to Reddit that any reasonable person would see as an effort to reduce the visibility of the Trump subreddit.
I think the Trump subreddit is very childish (seems to be intentional). But I hate the thought of websites like Reddit, FB, and Twitter engaging in practices that clearly and systematically try to reduce the visibility and legitimacy of one political viewpoint. What if the table was turned against the liberal viewpoint? I would be just as worried.
This is fairly easily disproved by looking at non-US subreddits. I frequent /r/france, /r/unitedkingdom and /r/sweden and non-liberal viewpoints, although less popular, are certainly not silenced. They're just that: less popular (thus more downvotes).
Things are different for the trump subreddit because it's a subreddit that has actively engaged in hostility against other subreddits and particular reddit users. Calls for brigading, slurs and harrassment of other users and admins, I've seen it all by now. It's reprehensible.
The main Trump subreddit would have long been banned and nuked out of existence if it weren't as popular as it is today. Right now, Reddit would face too much backlash if it outright banned the subreddit for continuing not to comply with the site rules. So it's understandable that the admins are trying to handle the situation somehow -- that's not "an effort to reduce [its] visibility", it's a compromise that doesn't involve removing the sub outright.
There's plenty of pro-trump subreddits which aren't involved in this nonsense because they're not spamming, harrassing, using bots etc. You don't hear about them because they get lost in the noise.
> to handle the situation somehow -- that's not "an effort to reduce [its] visibility", it's a compromise that doesn't involve removing the sub outright.
I'm certain what will happen is that the admins will keep adjusting the anti-voting ring algorithms until they effectively nerf all of the accounts that frequent the_donald and vote there.
Then they have a cover for any backlash because they didn't do anything specifically targeting the_donald, it just happens to be the case that the_donald "unfortunately got impacted" by the new algorithm due to the community's behavior.
I think that's the wrong way to approach /r/all (a subreddit that aggregates top posts from across Reddit). It's aim is to give people a look at top posts from across the site. If it gets dominated by any one subreddit - even if that were an innocuous subreddit full of of cute animals (like /r/aww) - it's an issue that would need to be fixed by changing the scoring algorithms. /r/all is not a prize for people to win, it's for readers to get a sense of major posts across the site.
On top of this, the Trump subreddit wasn't even legitimately getting most of it's posts to /r/all. They were actively trying to manipulate things in order to flood /r/all - making a sticky of new posts to get rapid upvotes, saying they would upvote any post on the subreddit, etc. The result was that the usefulness of /r/all went down, because a lot of it was just posts from one subreddit. The posts in the Trump subreddit also aren't innocuous. After the U.K. parliament attack, for instance, they made a post with the title "But hey, it wasn't all bad. In the end a Muslim was shot." that got ten thousand upvotes.
The_Donald's strategy was one of depth: focus on one subreddit aND it's content and work the algorithm to get to the front page.
The resist subreddits strategy is one of width: lots of subreddits where they focus on one or 2 posts in their subreddits network to get visibility on the front page.
The resist strategy is more annoying because there are too many different subreddits that they control to effectively filter them out
As I saw it, that subreddit was mostly artificially increasing their visibility, and the measures introduced by the admins countered that. So I don't think they're actively trying to reduce the visibility of one political viewpoint, but rather to give it the visibility that is actually somewhat proportional to how much visibility users desire it to have.
They created r popular specifically to censor the_donald and promote the dozens of resist subreddits.
It's pretty crazy: I started on reddit about 10 years ago and it has noticeably changed in their attitude towards allowing political opunions that they do not agree with
Think about it this way: your communication platform serving several hundred million users is being trolled by a very vocal minority which happens to be politically aligned and it cannot be excluded that the trolling is in some cases inspired and sponsored by a foreign nation state. Do you really keep your hands off the wheel because free speech?
Yes, Absolutely. I'm a firm believer that once social media platforms reach a certain size that they should be managed much the same as any public space: free speech is of the utmost importance.
Absolutely. And it's not just on WaPo stories; it's on almost any kind of post that can be tangentially tied to Trump populism.
One of the subreddits I frequent is for a liberal major city. The the_donald shills are vastly outnumbered, but every single post has a few of them popping up to argue in their disingenuous signature troll style (tu quoque, gish gallop, rinse + repeat).
I used to waste time arguing with them, but now I just down vote and move on. These people aren't interested in any kind of real debate; they just want to broadcast their Breitbart talking points over and over again.
Is it brigading only if you don't accept the narrative? Half of the popular voted for the man, can't remember anyone complained when Obama was in the office.
I do like the fact that a newspaper equates itself with any Joe with a resdit signon. How many steps in between wapo and "Average Joe and his facts and opinion?" maybe 3??
The point is if an average user wants to post something that doesnt fit in a community they know of they have a place to post it. It reallg sucks to try to post something and have the stupid moderators shut it down for violating one of their dozens of rules.
It also can give more power from moderators back to yhe people who are providing the content. Moderators provide a good service to the community but they are way too powerful/influential as is
pretty interesting, seems like one of the first examples of news organizations "advertising" on reddit. I wonder how it will go down and if any others will follow.
Yeah, I made an account a while ago with the intent to participate and realized I wasn't nearly technical enough to add any value yet, but back now that I'm farther along with my CS degree. For once I had some relevant info! Shitload of Reddit, though, and easy to spot certain patterns from a mile away, just funny to see it here.
People are unhappy with this comment but I think it speaks to Avi's (and extension wapo's) lack of credibility. Really disliked outside of the dc buro ever since the bezos acquisition. Furthering their misdirected"digital" push is hardly something to celebrate.
WaPo has credibility, and Avi doesn't. There's a drastic contradiction.
You want nasty? Check out what Troy Aikman said about Skip Bayless if you want nasty.
“To say I’m disappointed in the hiring of Skip Bayless would be an enormous understatement,” Aikman said. “Clearly, [Fox Sports president of national networks] Jamie Horowitz and I have a difference of opinion when it comes to building a successful organization. I believe success is achieved by acquiring and developing talented, respected and credible individuals, none of which applies to Skip Bayless."
Mark that.
EDIT: FYI Skip Bayless started a rumor in Dallas that Troy Aikman was gay. I don't think Troy forgets that. You shouldn't either.
Now that's a match made in heaven. Or Hell. Or whatever.
Now Washington Post will have another outlet to tell Millennials why we need to invade Iraq again. Or Syria. Or Ukraine. Or wherever they are stirring up the pot for.
That said, one of the challenges of having an official Reddit account that constantly engages with users (it's been actively commenting and replying to users), I would imagine, would be having to be in IAMA mode 24/7. That's fun until something a controversial question/challenge comes up, in which case hours/days of silence will be seen as an admission of guilt/coverup (see r/AMADisasters).
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/6bu4vg/what_a...