The New Reddit C.E.O.’s Many Challenges

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/the-new-reddit-ceos-many-challenges/

by kanamekun • 11 years ago

25 21 11 years ago

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

themeek6• 11 years ago

During his AMA I asked clarifying questions that never got answered about Reddit's policies about federal programs and partnerships regarding the management of political discussion attributed to foreign actors - and whether like other social media sites - foreign political content including propaganda are considered by Reddit to be 'spam' and 'trolling' and therefore subject to Reddit's comment deletion and shadowbanning capabilities.

I unfortunately did not see a reply. It's my understanding that many of these executives of social media websites face the challenge of negotiating what the community wants and the curation requests and preferences of partners - both governmental, 'civil society' and business customers and investors.

pavel_lishin3• 11 years ago

Was your question basically "will sockpuppetting be allowed"?

themeek6• 11 years ago

Not quite.

I wanted to get a picture of whether the socketpuppeting that is done on reddit was colored by particular objectives - whether US and partner sockpuppeting is allowed where adversary sockpuppeting is not - and whether censorship of certain types of content was performed on the behest of partnerships.

Basically, an overall clarification about the policies, the technologies and the coded language for reddit's stance on sockpuppeting and content curation.

theseatoms2• 11 years ago

Do we have any evidence around the frequency and/or magnitude of US federal government pressure/censorship tactics towards social media sites?

I don't doubt that it happens, but I would expect much more noise about this if it was truly widespread.

themeek6• 11 years ago

We do but it's unfortunately not widely covered.

The Snowden document released on the strategic objectives - the high level goals driving all NSA technology - included strategic communication, which we know from DoD investment in the last two presidents has increasingly been focused toward social media (with some programs like SMISC and MINERVA as public research instanciations of the policy).

We know quite a bit about the US attempted partnerships with Twitter (historically Twitter has refused partnership but now is more congenial) from FOIA documents and news sources and that the US uses sockpuppets in many places, including Twitter for its own propaganda purposes worldwide. We know that the Facebook studies on nudging voting behavior and emotions had ties to these programs as well.

We know that threat intelligence systems include patterns to block certain URLs and content that is foreign controlled propaganda - notably of Russian origin and that there are people in the government full time on tracking Salafist ideas online for both blocking when they reach American audiences and engagement of various sorts overseas.

We know that there is a firewall between the State Department and DoD when it comes to the programs (State Department has the overt programs for the most part and the DoD the covert). We know a few things from various leaks about partnerships (HB Gary Federal, etc) with private sector intelligence firms.

We also have reports from the US and journalists about some of the techniques of adversary nations and we have some details especially about GCHQs JTRIG capabilities and some of the areas the NSA and GCHQ have worked in due to Snowden document. We have a couple of other examples - things like ZunZuneo - that some social media platforms are fronts for various countries rather than merely partners.

We also know some things about the law in the United States for messaging: foreign messaging the US has pretty much no limitations. While it will censor American political speech (al-Alwaki's youtube videos, etc) for the most part it can justify minimal amounts of this and focuses on foreign speech and foreign aimed influence.

It is legal in the United States to message Americans under wartime powers, states of emergency (Occupy and Ferguson were both considered states of emergency), and for the purposes of getting domestic support for overseas military operations. The Smith-Mundt Act was recently revised to remove the limitation on the US government to prevent foreign-aimed propaganda from being incidentally consumed by Americans (the internet makes this hard) but it's unfortunate that this happens quite a lot (why they had to make the revision) and that it has, in the past, been purposefully abused.

We also know some things about historical partnerships, but most of that has to do with 'old media' and it's hard to draw real policy and technical implications from programs that existed a generation ago. The things we know about those partnerships today (partnerships with media executives, leaked editing of journalism coverage) that look like the old stuff don't focus on social media so much - the social media programs are a relatively new initiative.

x0x02• 11 years ago

reddit is largely immune to political pressures that other large social media sites must endure for the simple reason that reddit makes shit for money and has no business operations abroad. Facebook and Twitter have to listen to foreign governments because they want to do business in those countries.

themeek6• 11 years ago

That sounds mostly right to me. Barely floating or even running in the red (making shit for money) also provides financial incentives. But beyond the monetary there are plenty of types of leverage - legal, "human", and access to information (in reddit this is probably also not as strong leverage). There's also rewards that can be given to individuals who have some say in the direction of reddit. For example Pao was on the board of National Defense Thinktanks in Washington - an opportunity to both give a small stipend and for conversations to open dialogue and for perception.

asb• 11 years ago

Amazingly, Yishan Wong (previous CEO of Reddit) has commented about the firing of Victoria (which was one of the things added fire to the backlash against Ellen Pao), claiming it was Alexis who made the decision to fire her https://np.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/3d2hv3/kn0th...

RockyMcNuts• 11 years ago

He also posted this little bit of bridge-burning -

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the...

deelowe2• 11 years ago

It's not secret there was tremendous pressure to get from underneath Conde Nast. There had to be some leverage to make them decide to just hand over the keys to the kingdom like that.

I've been curious ever since it happened what the specific details of the deal were.

exstudent23• 11 years ago

Yishan seems to love to do stuff like this. While I personally find it interesting, it also seems pretty unprofessional. Some issues with this particular comment:

1. Yishan no longer works at Reddit so I don't think he can be considered an authoritative source for what happened.

2. Yishan appointed Pao so isn't unbiased when discussing her.

3. The CEO's job is to represent the company. The chairman's job is to appoint the CEO. The outcome of events seems correct even if what Yishan says is true.

exstudent23• 11 years ago

I wonder if he'll reverse the "no salary negotiation" rule that Pao put in place. If they're struggling to attract talent as this article suggests, it seems like a wise move.

pavel_lishin3• 11 years ago

I wonder if they'll allow remote employees again.

exstudent23• 11 years ago

Indeed. The decision to make everyone relocate seems like it was the beginning of a lot of internal strife including Yishan leaving and Pao replacing him.

I don't work for Reddit but mandatory centralization of the workforce seems like it goes against the product and company ethos.

studentrob• 11 years ago

This article is a day or two old.

More recent news is, this NYT author himself has yet to comment on why his article about Pao's resignation was retitled and rewritten "from fact to opinion", as Altman mentioned in a recent tweet.

The New Reddit C.E.O.’s Many Challenges

Related Stories