rabidwombat's recent activity
-
Comment on /r/IAmA mods to stop hosting celebrity AMAs, verifying identities, and more in ~tech
-
Comment on /r/IAmA mods to stop hosting celebrity AMAs, verifying identities, and more in ~tech
rabidwombat Link ParentDid he? That's a viable claim, but it deserves a [citation required] tag. When was he added, and when did he unmod himself? And did he do so, and not some other admin? Those questions are very...Did he? That's a viable claim, but it deserves a [citation required] tag. When was he added, and when did he unmod himself? And did he do so, and not some other admin?
Those questions are very low-value, tbh. They won't change anything, and won't change any minds. But still - claims without data are not facts, just more theories.
-
Comment on /r/IAmA mods to stop hosting celebrity AMAs, verifying identities, and more in ~tech
rabidwombat Link ParentAbsolutely no evidence that I know of, no. And given the attention that the sub was getting, as well as all the sturm und drang of people defending the sub and violentacrez and others, you'd...Absolutely no evidence that I know of, no. And given the attention that the sub was getting, as well as all the sturm und drang of people defending the sub and violentacrez and others, you'd really expect evidence to come to the surface if there were any, especially given the opprobrium Huffman is coming in for now.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, obviously, but still. It really does seem vastly unlikely Huffman was an active participant in that sub in any way.
That said, it doesn't mean "getting added without his knowledge" is the only remaining option, though - I mentioned before that it's not implausible he'd joined or been added to keep a semi-official eye on a sub that was proving a lightning rod for criticism. And there are probably other possibilities to be had, if you wanted to get creative about it :) But afaik there's zero evidence for any theory or claim.
-
Comment on /r/IAmA mods to stop hosting celebrity AMAs, verifying identities, and more in ~tech
rabidwombat (edited )Link ParentThanks for the insights! I don't think many rational people give much credence to the conspiracy theory - the idea that /u/spez was an active participant in /r/jailbait. Unfortunately, I don't...Thanks for the insights! I don't think many rational people give much credence to the conspiracy theory - the idea that /u/spez was an active participant in /r/jailbait. Unfortunately, I don't think Steve Huffman or Reddit will be able to put the theory to bed - it's going to linger for as long as the internet remembers, because...
Just as the conspiracy theory is pretty bonkers, what you're proposing is also hard to take at face value - that it somehow happened invisibly. Again, this wasn't some random Joe on one fringe subreddit among 10,000. This was the account of the site's co-founder (though I believe you're right - he wasn't on the management team at the time - Hipmunk, right?), being attached to a subreddit that was actively being used by mainstream media to cast shade on the entire Reddit operation, and very much in the public consciousness as well ("jailbait" was the 2nd-highest search term leading people to the site [1]), and sensitive enough that the other co-founder Alexis Ohanian was making public statements about it, and later Reddit GM Erik Martin as well. Is it possible the site was so poorly managed that, in that surrounding context, no one had a clue? Yeah, it's possible, if you grant an astounding degree of management and technical ineptitude, which are jointly necessary to justify the void of attention. For example: who exactly was it who added /u/spez as a mod to /r/jailbait, and when? That should have been a line in a mod log somewhere, right? Starting there would have made sense.
And that's part of the ongoing problem. The best case is that you're completely correct, and the company was collectively incompetent enough to a) let it happen b) without anyone noticing and c) with no exculpatory evidence to defend its own co-founder in such a sensitive issue. That's stretching credulity but not actually impossible, but even if true it's going to ensure the conspiracy theory persists. There's almost certainly no data available now, even if the current team wanted to dredge it up, so they get to live with that lingering smell.
There may be a lesson there for other small hyper-growth teams: building in visibility and transparency may slow you down today, but could help bury unpleasant accusations tomorrow.
Edit:: One point: your description of /u/spez as "inactive"? Not sure I agree with that - he appeared to be less prolific but still plenty active during that period; archive.org has many snapshots of his user page and posting history. What did you mean there?
[1] Allegedly. https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/bblep/til_that_jailbait_is_the_number_2_search_term/c0lxp3g/
-
Comment on /r/IAmA mods to stop hosting celebrity AMAs, verifying identities, and more in ~tech
rabidwombat (edited )Link ParentYes, that's the story being told. But all I've seen are competing narratives, no actual corroboration or facts. Edit: Just to clarify why I'm sceptical about the various uncorroborated narratives:...Yes, that's the story being told. But all I've seen are competing narratives, no actual corroboration or facts.
Edit: Just to clarify why I'm sceptical about the various uncorroborated narratives: the issue of /r/jailbait got a LOT of media attention at the time. It was called out on CNN, among others. It wasn't some fringe subreddit no one knew about, and Alexis Ohanian specifically commented that "as long what’s going on is legal, there’s nothing we can do to effectively police it."
So it seems highly unlikely that senior reddit management weren't keeping an eye on it, given it was very much being brought to their attention, and on their PR radar. The notion that one of the management team could be silently added as a moderator and no one including him noticed? That seems...doubtful. Part of a management team conducting oversight, seems more plausible. But that too would be pure speculation.
-
Comment on /r/IAmA mods to stop hosting celebrity AMAs, verifying identities, and more in ~tech
rabidwombat Link ParentIt's possible he was added as a moderator without his knowledge, but is there any actual evidence that's what happened? Has he even commented publicly about it?It's possible he was added as a moderator without his knowledge, but is there any actual evidence that's what happened? Has he even commented publicly about it?
-
Comment on Elon Musk announces new daily Twitter limitations as thousands of users report problems accessing site in ~tech
rabidwombat Link ParentIt's a function of ethical journalism. You should always give subjects of an article the opportunity to respond, even if you are 99% certain they won't do so. It also avoids accusations that you...It's a function of ethical journalism. You should always give subjects of an article the opportunity to respond, even if you are 99% certain they won't do so. It also avoids accusations that you didn't try to make contact in order to fact-check.
And highlighting it shows the reader that you tried, and they didn't: that's why so many articles have some variant of "so-and-so did not respond to requests for comment". Does it add any actual content? No. But it shows you made the effort.
Source: ex-journalist. 20 years in newsrooms, for my sins.
I think you have that backwards. The assertion that he demodded himself is the claim, and carries the burden of proof.
And the reality is that there IS no proof, in either direction. No proof that he was added as a mod without his knowing and no proof hat he demodded himself. This is why Reddit as a company, and Huffman as an individual, will probably never shake this story off entirely. Like all conspiracy theories, it contains a grain of truth: It's an undeniable fact that he was a moderator of that subreddit. Everything else - positive and negative - is unsubstantiated theory.