Literally founded the place; chosen by co-founders/people with stakes in the company to be their CEO. That’s how businesses work, OP, stop being silly.
No problem with that. The hypocritical part is that he argued that mods are bad, because they aren’t chosen democratically. Here’s the quote I have trouble with:
“If you’re a politician or a business owner, you are accountable to your constituents."
“And I think, on Reddit, the analogy is closer to the landed gentry: The people who get there first get to stay there and pass it down to their descendants, and that is not democratic.”
He says, the mods are bad because they haven’t been elected. But neither has he.
If he wants to suppress mods because they weren’t voted in, maybe there should be a vote about his position.
Yeah his argument is dumb - if you don’t like a particular sub or how it is run, you can (or could), create a new one. This new move by reddit makes that pointlesss- literally saying if they don’t like how you run it, they’ll take it over. How is that ‘democratic’?
Upvoted, but it won’t work.
Of course it won’t. But it would help to colour him as the hypocrite he is.
Literally founded the place; chosen by co-founders/people with stakes in the company to be their CEO. That’s how businesses work, OP, stop being silly.
No problem with that. The hypocritical part is that he argued that mods are bad, because they aren’t chosen democratically. Here’s the quote I have trouble with:
He says, the mods are bad because they haven’t been elected. But neither has he.
If he wants to suppress mods because they weren’t voted in, maybe there should be a vote about his position.
Yeah his argument is dumb - if you don’t like a particular sub or how it is run, you can (or could), create a new one. This new move by reddit makes that pointlesss- literally saying if they don’t like how you run it, they’ll take it over. How is that ‘democratic’?