Reddit Welcomes Michael Seibel to Board of Directors | Hacker News Reader

Reddit Welcomes Michael Seibel to Board of Directors

redditblog.com

326 pointsrmason355 comments

A dumb but serious question: what powers does a board of directors have? In terms of day to day operations, engineering, product, marketing and so on?

It depends on how the board is set up, but generally they don't deal with day-to-day things. They're mainly concerned with the big picture of how the company is doing, and directly deal with things like hiring/firing/compensating executives, M&A, etc.

The board of a directors does not get involved with day to day operations.

The board of directors sets the strategy for the firm.

That is because the board of directors has the authority to hire/fire company management.

Board of directors != Advisory board.

> The board of directors sets the strategy for the firm.

I have never seen this be the case, though I can only speak for start-ups and early post-IPO eras.

The board provides oversight over the CEO and other executives responsible for planning in the organization. They review quarterly earnings and other financials, and provide feedback and thoughts on what the company wants to do in the subsequent planning period (which is driven by the CEO, not the board). Usually the board and leadership team meet only once a quarter, with the occasional call in-between (but otherwise very little face time).

More often than not the board's influence is in asking questions that help the CEO and leadership team better flush out their plan, pointing out potential issues or bringing up topics of discussion that may not have been considered. Maybe a board member has experience in something on your roadmap, or knows someone/company/product that can help.

Maybe they feel very strongly for/against something, so you commit to getting back to them with your thoughts/plan of actions after doing some more due diligence. Maybe they think you want to spend too much on a new initiative next year, and want to see a revised forecast that bakes in a more conservative approach.

Boards have say in executive compensation & equity grants, but rarely otherwise seem them get involved in financials. Usually they have their own financial analyst look over your data, and ask a lot of uncomfortable questions you don't currently have answers to that you maybe get embarrassed about when you finally do figure it out.

In rare circumstances, the board may have negative or lukewarm feelings about what's presented and the CEO may decide to revise that plan, but it really depends on the CEO. New CEO's may be more likely to buckle to board pressure/suggestions than an experienced CEO. I've seen it both ways (usually the CEO doesn't want to hurt future fundraising and may acquiesce more readily).

At the end of the day, it's the CEO leading strategy with the board providing a "first right of refusal/you're crazy" role.

> I have never seen this be the case, though I can only speak for start-ups and early post-IPO eras.

That’s usually because the founder(s) still have majority control at that point so the board just takes an advisory role. The dynamic completely changes when the board members can form a majority and remove the entire C suite.

> can form a majority and remove the entire C suite.

Having this power doesn't give them any authority over strategy, it just means that with proper paperwork they can remove someone. But boards don't put someone in the pilot seat unless they expect them to fly. CEO's are given a considerable amount of latitude (remember Adam Neumann?).

This is splitting hairs. Being able to fire the execs very much guarantees your voice is more than advisory.

Which unfortunately didn't happen at HP with the phone hacking scandal.

The Chairman should have taken Patricia Dunn aside early on and told that the board had lost confidence in Her and some of the leadership team long before Patricia was forced out.

"The board of directors sets the strategy for the firm."

Not really.

The Board is there to oversee the company on behalf of the shareholders. Their primary job is oversight, they hire and fire the CEO, will be involved in recruitment for C-Level. They may or may not be involved with any kind of strategy. They will definitely be involved in financial governance issues such as fundraising, IPOs, major debt issuances.

They can be involved strategically by helping to form relationships, introductions, and in some cases providing guidance.

But the board doesn't make plans, do strategies etc. They're not very involved. Most board members don't do much at all.

That's because shareholders let them off the hook.

The board represents the members (shareholders) of the company, they are responsible to them for the performance of their company, which reflects the investment in the equity.

The CEO is an employee of the company. The power to set strategy may be delegated to him by the board, but the board is still responsible for it.

Public companies have additional responsibilities of the board because they are also responsible to comply with the market's rules and government regulation (eg SEC regulations) that are stricter for public companies than private.

Very little in terms of day-to-day, unless a board director decides to make it his/her mission to change something at that very low level. The board meets typically quarterly (monthly depending on the circumstances?) and is generally focused on higher level questions like the company's growth trajectory and forecasts, major problems, compensation strategy, hiring key executives, fundraising, M&A, etc.

Like I mentioned, any board member can decide to make an issue out of something, but you would expect a very legitimate reason to waste the other board members' or executives' time with a nit about a specific product feature or marketing campaign. Not to mention, a board member that meddles too much in the daily affairs of the company would draw scrutiny from both the CEO and other board members for not focusing on important strategic topics.

So if they have a meeting every 3 months, what is the rest of their time spent doing? Sounds like a pretty cushy job.

It's not the full-time job of each member.

I wonder what the income from the positions are though - IE would they make minimum wage if that was the only position they had?

Usually public companies publish these figures.

As far as I can tell from ones I have seen, they make more than a Senior Engineer makes mostly by RSUs.

You can find proxy statement for public companies(Amazon, Google,, they publish it before the annual shareholder meeting which most of the time includes compensation for board members.

For example, here is the one Alphabet published recently for 2020: https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/2020_alphabet_proxy_stat...

From the PDF:

In 2019, we awarded our standard ongoing compensation to each of our non-employee directors, including an annual $75,000 cash retainer payable in arrears and an annual $350,000 GSU grant. We paid an additional $25,000 annual cash retainer and an additional $150,000 annual GSU grant to John L. Hennessy, our non-executive Chairman of the Board of Directors, given his additional duties in the role. We also paid an additional $25,000 annual cash retainer to Ann for her role as the Audit Committee chairperson.We awarded the above-mentioned cash retainers and GSU grants to our non-employee directors on July 3, 2019, the first Wednesday of the month following our 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The exact number of GSUs comprising the equity awards wascalculated by dividing the target dollar value of the award by the closing price of Alphabet’s Class C capital stock on the day prior to grant and rounding up to the nearest whole share. All annual GSU grants made to our non-employee directors vest at the rate of 1/48th monthly, beginning on the 25th day of the month following the grant date until fully vested, subject to continued service on our Board of Directors through the applicable vesting dates.

And then they have a table with concrete values for each director, on page 38. The median for 2019 is $428,298.

Sometimes there is no income. For instance, I used to work for a Credit Union. The board members were elected by account holders. The board members were considered "volunteers". They are legally not allowed to receive compensation for their role.

Even outside formal meetings board members typically use their network (connections or board posts in other companies) to push the company's agenda. Which can lead to business deals or have effect on law or whatever.

This makes a lot of sense now I think about it, but it does seem like institutionalized corruption?

"We have 300K - shall we spend it improving our product or hiring an NED who happens to be VP at a big target enterprise customer?"

When (ex-)politicians take a board seat corruption certainly is an issue. (I don't say that it's always a problem, but still a common issue)

Within the economy itself board seats are given by the shareholders. Typically to tie investments together. If a fund is investing in company A and B they certainly want cooperation between A and B and place board members with such relations in there. This comes problematic if a strong shareholder uses this to shuffle revenue away from other shareholders into another company where they have a stronger majority (say investment fund F owns 50% of A and 90% of B and then fills A's board in a way to encourage the A company to buy as much consulting from B as possible) There (similar to democracy) minority rights and supervision by authorities like SEC is important. (While there is a school of thought, which argues that the minority shareholders simply should leave and the free market will handle this as an overpaying A won't survive in the market)

They are often named in lawsuits. The cushy $100k/yr can easily be eaten up by legal fees.

$100k a year is peanuts; Fortune 500 boards often go way higher. And board members usually sit on multiple boards, so that's more like 500k/yr, plus tiny stipends for sitting on the local YMCA board and the committee of the local orchestra.

From posts further down:

> For example, here is the one Alphabet published recently for 2020: https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/2020_alphabet_proxy_stat....

and then a follow-up to that post where they pull out data from that link:

> And then they have a table with concrete values for each director, on page 38. The median for 2019 is $428,298.

No they have D&O insurance for that. The Directors don't pay legal fees out of pocket.

Usually, the type of person who sits on boards sits on several. They collect a fist full of equity for coming to each meeting, and lending their supposed business expertise to steer crucial decisions. In the Fortune 500 world, they're ferried around by company-owned aircraft to boot. Yes, it's a cushy lifestyle.

And when you realize that it's these sorts of bozos who made the plans to acquire your company, lied to the shareholders about their intentions, and then raped and pillaged it, and sold it all off for parts, and ruined what was an awesome place to work, and you get bitter about this particular societal inequality. ;-)

They have ultimate power over everything. They could ban my favourite subreddit tomorrow if they wanted.

In practice however, they hire a CEO to handle all that for them and don't get involved unless things get so out of hand that they feel their CEO is steering the ship wrong. At this point they tell the CEO what outcomes they expect, and if he can't or won't comply, he gets replaced.

> They have ultimate power over everything. They could ban my favourite subreddit tomorrow if they wanted.

No well-functioning board would act like that. Sure, they can pressure the CEO to take particular action when the company is under pressure, but normally, that kind of micromanaging by the board would be a sign of serious dysfunction.

They are there to represent the shareholders, appoint the executives, and to ensure the company is being managed well, including complying with laws and adhering to relevant societal expectations.

The question was about what power the board has, not how a well-functioning board should operate.

Sure, technically, perhaps, but also not really? Their fiduciary duty is to act in the company's best interests, so they can't do anything that a court could find was harmful to the company, or to shareholders, including minority shareholders.

So, much like in a healthy governmental system, there's a tension of power; between the board, management, shareholders, customers, the general public, and the law.

So it's not really "ultimate" power. Yes "ultimate" in terms of appointing executives and setting long-term company direction. But not "ultimate" in terms of being able to, say, arbitrarily shut down a subreddit; if management didn't agree and it was not clearly in the company's best interests, it could lead to a leadership crisis and/or a fiduciary breach.

Note the questioner specified: "In terms of day to day operations...". The point is that the board is expressly not meant to interfere in day-to-day operations.

The board basically control the management and directors of the company and sets the strategies and long term visions that the company directors then implement. In a day to day level, the way if achieving the goals are usually left to the CEO but sometimes there's also a so called operative board in which case the board is also present on a more direct level. The C-letter executives are responsible for hitting their targets set by the board, thus the board basically has a full say on everything that happens in a company.

Board of Directors represent the interest of shareholders. Management's incentives aren't perfectly aligned with those of shareholders so they are there to manage management, so to speak, and the long-term value of the company (to shareholders above anyone else, in the end)

Boards don't actively do anything. They're a collection of notables whose presence provides clout to companies so they can attract investors, and whose inside connections to government and other power structures allows companies to curry favor and get special treatment. It's all politics and bullshit.

Analogy: A bit like your boss. They shouldn't micro-manage your work, but they can fire/replace you if you're not good at it.

Bear in mind that not all companies are quite as big as this lot. I don't know the actual stats for any country but I think that small companies are quite important in terms of additive scale. In general your small company has a nasty habit of hiring people, abiding by the rules and paying taxes.

So, I happen to be a Managing Director of a small company (UK) - we have 20 odd employees and a t/o of ~£1.5M. We are a private company, not public (more later.) We as a board have simple duties, largely decided by ourselves. We also have responsibilities that are dictated by the country: we have to file accounts on time to a proscribed format, pay corporation tax regularly, pay VAT returns on a regular basis etc. We also have to have a certain structure (two directors minimum) and hold regular meetings such as the AGM. There's a few other requirements but in general you do it how you like.

We also have shareholders who are not directors. These are employees who have served long enough (>four or so years is the general rule.) These are Class B shareholders (Me and the other directors are Class A). The difference is Class A stakeholders can vote on stuff - ie run the company and Class B can benefit from company profits but don't get to run my company.

Just to be clear: me and my partners (2) run the company but quite a few people get to benefit via shareholdings. If the shit hits the fan, me and my partners get to be kicked in the bollocks, shareholders only get tickled.

Oooh, SARS-CoV-2: We'll be fine for a while longer.

I like this honest explanation. Thank you.

> shareholders only get tickled

So, how can we become shareholders of your company?

Get employed in their company, and after certain seniority and performance you'll possibly be able to negotiate share ownership.

Quite. We will never set the world on fire. No one is likely to become a millionaire but we all sleep at night and earn enough to be comfortable.

The main powers that a board exercises are hiring and firing the CEO and approving/vetoing acquisitions.

Another way to think of it is that directors are like school governors.

They are powerful, but even more so they are responsible for the organization.

Company directors are public figures. They can be investigated for misconduct, struck off from being a director again, and must publish their personal details publicly. (They can also sign passport applications and vouch for visa applications: you get ups as well as downs!)

They appoint the executives but they have to fire them too, and are held accountable for the behavior of the people they choose. Mess it up and you’ll never sit in a board again.

The stakeholders go straight to the directors when things go wrong. This is especially fun when you have hundreds of thousands of members of the public as stakeholders in a publicly traded business.

The buck stops with them.

Serious answer: they can edit your comments and posts without it having edit mark, so it looks like you wrote it and never edited.

They represent the shareholders. They usually have the power to hire/fire the CEO and other CxO level management. They run "the company on behalf of its members".

They're expected to set the company's strategy, are responsible for the company's regulatory compliance, ensure that the company is properly reporting its performance to its shareholders, that it doesn't trade while insolvent, etc.

There are "executive directors" that have management responsibility, eg the CEO and "non-executive directors" that do not. In the US, often the CEO and the President of the board are the same person, but that's less common elsewhere and is considered a flaw in corporate governance.

There is also the concept of "independence" where a director is independent of related interests, eg being also related to other corporations that have major business as a supplier or customer etc.

> There are "executive directors" that have management responsibility, eg the CEO and "non-executive directors" that do not. In the US, often the CEO and the President of the board are the same person, but that's less common elsewhere and is considered a flaw in corporate governance.

Older and bigger companies tend to have the CEO and President be different people (T-Mobile, IBM, etc.)

Usually, when the company is smaller, they are the same person.

Whether they are the same or separate people does not really matter very much in practice, since the board will often reset both roles at the same time in any circumstance where they do not like management.

In the US the biggest impact a board can have is the hiring and firing of the CEO. (And the threat of that) They give the CEO guidance, and check performance, but as a group they work through the CEO.

The CEO has to aggregate the needs of both the board and their directs (and customers and suppliers) into a coherent whole. Not an easy job as if everyone gets 100% of what they want the organization can’t function. (In a sense it’s like product management at the company level)

I struggle to see any successful path for reddit that doesn’t devolve into being more like Facebook. Godspeed to the new CEO and I look forward to hearing their vision for the company.

Same CEO; this is a new board member (who happens to be CEO of YC).

What more is there to do with reddit? All their new ideas in the last 5 years have been poached from other social sites that did it first. It will always be a cesspool in the same manner that twitter and facebook with always be cesspools but that's more a reflection on society than management. They will always be pawns in the bot game, political game and advertising/sponsorship game because they are conduits only. Nothing good comes out of reddit that is not put into reddit from the outside.

> Nothing good comes out of reddit that is not put into reddit from the outside.

The good that comes from inside Reddit is the curation, as much as everyone likes to complain about it.

They have become more proactive about banning hate and grief subreddits and have a system for reporting and shadowbanning bad faith individuals. If anything one could argue they come down a little too hard on borderline controversial subs but it's such a tough line to walk.

"Curation"?

By five totally unaccountable mods, all pushing brands for money?

https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/gitwbo/p...

That curation is "The good that comes from inside Reddit"???

Dramatics aside, the best subreddits tend to be the ones that are strongly curated. /r/AskHistorians, /r/neutralpolitics, etc.

Those are very good subreddits (/r/nosleep is another strongly curated, excellent one with a different purpose) but I don't think that can stand up as a general rule at all. /r/NoStupidQuestions, /r/CrazyIdeas, /r/LearnPython...

The reason those subs are some of the best is not just because they are strongly curated, but also because they are fairly curated based on well defined, sensible rules.

The unaccountable, power-abusing moderators that are being discussed in this thread remove posts and ban users completely arbitrarily. If these mods had a rule system like r/AskHistorians and applied them as fairly, there wouldn't be nearly as much concern over the issue.

So? I dont care who the mods are. Reddit is a glorified collection of web forums. Like all web forums they live and die by the signal to noise ratio. Reddit is popular because most subreddits match up to some subgroup that thinks it has decent signal to noise ratio.

ah yes, come for the news, stay for the censorship

If you don't like it there is always Voat.

HN has a decent amount of curation, too. Been seeing a lot of flagged and deleted posts these days...

Cesspit echo-chamber anymore. A reflection of the communist society in which we're quickly headed. The doublespeak and gaslighting has a lot gotten worse...

There is nothing good that doesn't have an optimal size. Growth mandates eventually kill everything good.

Or at least necessitate it changing into something totally different from what made it good in the first place. The best you can hope for is that the new thing is also incidentally good.

This could also be an excellent move if they're planning to expand RPAN into a proper streaming platform. There's definitely potential for it.

Right. With Twitch just having given in to copyright trolls and deplatformed all the DJs with multiple strikes against 2-3 year old content and no tools for the Twitch users to practically deal with the new punishments in a timely enough fashion to not get auto-permabanned? I cannot see "a proper streaming platform" happening under his watch. :sigh:

Not sure why you're being downvotted. Twitch is going through a DRM crisis right now that may make other comparable products impossible to build for other companies.

RPAN should position itself for IRL streams.

Dear Reddit, for the love of Mike .. PLEASE treat reddit as a web-first platform.

You are killing the golden goose by trying to force people toward the app - by gradually removing features and usability from the mobile web site and constantly reminding people they "should" use the app.

I don't want reddit as an 'app', I want reddit to be readable/scrollable on mobile and web without any form of coercion.

That goose already got killed with the new UI. It's only usable via old.reddit.com now.

Maybe in the minority , but I think the UX of the mobile app is fantastic: * attractive card view * good actions from the list * good actions from the comments view * great performance

Yet old.reddit with RES runs circles around it. Maybe not on mobile though.

Never had any problems with RIF on mobile.

> great performance

Not for me. old.reddit.com flies while the new ui is a stuttery broken mess that requires more clicks for the same actions.

Agree. Love the iOS app.

>great performance

Compared to what?!?

The new UI works well for folks interested in image content and memes (which are the fuel of reddit now)

It's been only usable with RES and lots of filters for a long time.

Moreover, if I relent and click "View on app" while on mobile, it directs me to the App Store instead of opening the app to the thread I was attempting to read. At least handoff correctly if you're going to force me to use your stupid app.

This!! This is the single most annoying thing

Interesting. It opens on the deep link in my app every time with iPhone XS Max.

Any time I’ve worked with somebody who had to implement deep links, I’ve always heard them continuously complain about how ridiculous it is to get working.

Deep links are only hard because the base concept is semantic organization of your content, so you can deep link to one thing in an organized way. If your app isn't structured to present content like this, if it has many deep workflows or ordered stages of screens/states, then yeah it's gonna be hard to deep link into page 5 of the 11 page workflow you built, that also requires authentication and a bunch of data loading.

I think we can safely say that Reddit content is organized in a way that should be conducive to deep linking (each post and comment thread has a unique and permanent URL). Their deep links generally work well for me though, unlike some other apps.

I once had to implement deep links for a React Native app and, while I’m by no means a great mobile dev there were plenty of thorny bits. For example, I think iOS doesn’t open a deep link in app if you type the url directly into the address bar. It will only open in the app if the user taps a link. Another complexity is making sure a deep link opens in the app for app users and opens the App Store for other users.

iOS also has two different systems for deep linking, custom protocols (eg myapp://) and universal links (a server side manifest that you register with Apple). These each have their pros and cons.

To be sure, those should be solvable problems for a company with even a fraction of Reddit’s resources.

Someone already said it above, but I don't know if the blame lies entirely with Reddit since deep links from Safari to the app work fine for some of us. I've never had issues getting linked deep into any comment thread, for example.

YouTube links, on the other hand, never work for me. They always open in Safari and then I have to find a way to trigger the app link by opening one of the menus on the YouTube website.

I don’t think that’s the only difficulty. There’s something else going on in iOS. YouTube links don’t even open in the YouTube app on my iPhone (I have to load the safari page, add them to Watch Later, then switch to the YouTube app). It does, however, work on my iPad.

Do you have to be logged in to add them to Watch Later?

The same thing happens to me with Youtube, but only on iPad, not iPhone. The way I get the app open is, when I get to Safari, I try to open the page in desktop. Youtube app kicks open then.

You do have to be logged in, and I am logged into YouTube in Safari.

Me too. It’s fascinating how that level of incompetence can persist for so long. I can’t believe that someone who is in charge of their visitor numbers hasn’t realized that they are surely missing out on an utterly huge number of visits due to that broken flow.

I haven't checked in a while but on mobile, responding to threads would collapse the text completely on itself in the new layout. The problem persisted for months and I ended up dropping Reddit from my reading list altogether.

Incredible how a billion dollar corporation can be so bad at doing the basics right. Twitter is the same - I still can't play videos on the first try 80% of the time.

Amazon does the same thing with kindle links on iOS. I'm not sure it's incompetence so much as a platform oddity

In my experience, the app didn't work very well. They never got the notification indicator right. At all. As in, it would never work for me.

I don't think they're killing it. Anecdotally, all my friends prefer the app and the redesign to the old web client.

I suspect this anecdata is supported by Reddit's metrics, otherwise they wouldn't be pushing so hard for it (barring some other long term goal)

Not that I like the changes. I much prefer the old version.

They're so hostile to their own users I'm not sure they get accurate results from their metrics.

- They change you back to the new design every few days.

- They constantly tell you to use the app (thankfully you can disable this at least).

- The old reddit design has a sidebar with helpful content, but this is not automatically present in the redesign. If you're a mod you have to manually copy that content over to the redesign and keep both updated separately. A lot of mods don't seem to know this so some communities just don't have their community information in the redesign.

- The new redesign on mobile web is so bad that those that don't know about how to get the old design will probably use the app to get something that works.

I'm glad old.reddit still exists, but I think if they just scrapped the entire new site it would be a better product. Probably worse for 'engagement' though because without infinite scroll, gifs loading everywhere, and other addictive hacks, people would just read what they wanted to and leave. The horror.

(Also r/hnblogs traffic has most people using the old design, but there's an obvious selection bias in that community.)

> - They change you back to the new design every few days.

This is so annoying that I have to use this chrome extension to force it back to old.reddit.com:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/old-reddit-redirec...

Likewise for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/old-reddit-re...

Likewise, for Safari: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/oldr-for-reddit/id1475048161?m...

Disclaimer that I'm also the author.

> new redesign on mobile web is so bad

The funniest part is plenty of 3rd party apps had been doing an amazing job already. All reedit had to do was acquire one of them on the cheap or steal design cues from the ones that were most popular.

Instead they created this monstrosity which till date lags behind many 3rd party apps in features and fluidity.

> old.reddit

RES is the only way to use reddit, and they can pry it from my cold dead hands.

> All reedit had to do was acquire one of them on the cheap or steal design cues from the ones that were most popular.

They already tried this with Alien Blue

Why didn't they keep it?

Their goal is not to make a good website, their goal is to show you ads.

Yes, but that is likely due in part to Reddit’s desire to deprioritize making the web client good relative to mobile. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Metrics lie. Defaults matter.

I barely use Reddit anymore. The UI on mobile is intentional garbage and I do not want the bloody app.

But the desktop UI is getting worse; navigation is ridiculous and the pages are so junked up that it is actively repellant.

It is too bad. I used to actually enjoy browsing and (gasp) commenting sometimes. Now I tend to hit a single page via search and leave. Can't remember the last time I actually logged in.

Try https://old.reddit.com for a vastly superior experience.

FYI, one can toggle this in settings with an account. So no need for the URL

Unfortunately the settings override doesn't quite work in every circumstance, so most people use extensions to force this instead.

If you don't plan on posting, https://np.reddit.com also works. The 'np' is for a 'no-post' version where you can't vote or reply.

If Reddit's metrics confirmed that people preferred the app, they wouldn't have to push so hard for it.

Who cares what the metrics or what people want if the new design allows them to data mine harder? Tell everyone this is what people really want, trust us, and then track every eyeball, tap, and scroll as hard as possible.

The app is much, much better than the site. I think you might be in the minority.

Than the old site? Ehhhh. Than the new site? Yes, much better.

The new site looks like someone was told to design a generic social media app for mobile. It doesn’t make any sense. The old site was pretty ugly, but at least used screen real estate effectively and allowed for quick browsing.

Depending on what exactly I’m looking at, I will prefer mobile or web. That said, I am not a fan of the official app and prefer third party ones.

>constantly reminding people they "should" use the app.

It's not merely suggestions though. They have one button - stay in your mobile browser - greyed out and one bright and active - open the mobile app.

It also uses a native-ish looking UI that pops up as the sharing UI does.

It feels like they're trying to trick people into using the app, over merely reminding people that they "should".

It feels as though there is a poor product manager or someone over there whose bonus depends on getting as many users off the mobile web and into the app as possible--whether the users actually want to or not. In a past life as a product manager, I've had the "make users do this thing they don't want to do" job and it truly sucks.

> PLEASE treat reddit as a web-first platform.

Agreed. But I think they've made up their minds already.

In the meantime, you can use "old.reddit.com" until they decide to take that away.

Killing old.reddit.com would probably be their final Digg moment for me. Maybe they'll manage to keep the bulk of their users and keep some husk of it's former self going for a long time, but I'm gone. I suspect many others will join. The quality of content has been plummeting for years anyway.

Too bad there's no clear successor this time.

Yes the discourse and content quality is quite poor, so much so that I quit using the site completely in the last few months. To be honest I don't miss it at all, so...

If you’re using Reddit on iOS or iPadOS and you’re not using Apollo, you’re doing yourself a disservice.

https://apolloapp.io/

As an added bonus if you subscribe to the subreddit, /r/ApolloApp it’s like /r/ChoosingBeggarsLite with the complaints and feature requests for a free app.

I find Narwhal for Reddit a superior experience on iOS, ESPECIALLY on iPadOS, FWIW.

http://getnarwhal.com/

I've tried narwhal and few other apps, but none comes close to reddit (mobile) site when it was usable and light. I specially dislike narwhal's fixed gesture options. The app forces you to get used to something you don't want/like in the first place.

I prefer Beam to Apollo, to be honest, even though it's largely unmaintained. I think the UI is much nicer.

> As an added bonus if you subscribe to the subreddit, /r/ApolloApp it’s like /r/ChoosingBeggarsLite with the complaints and feature requests for a free app.

Apollo isn't really free, is it? And I don't see what's wrong with asking for things for an app in the subreddit which seems designed for exactly that?

There’s asking for something and then there’s being a Choosing Beggar(tm).

> complaints and feature requests for a free app.

eh, except for those who paid the 2.99 for the Pro upgrade.

I prefer the official app over Apollo. I used to use Apollo and just assumed it must better, but the official app has gotten very good and Apollo, while excellent, has many bugs.

The problem with apps is that they don't have tabs. I can only view one thing at a time, and the way I use Reddit (open a bunch of links in new tabs to read one at a time, or to refer to two things at a time) doesn't work without tabs.

It's the same with the Amazon app. The website is atrocious because pressing back after viewing anything shoots you back to the top of the page, but the app only lets you see one thing at a time.

i.reddit.com

It's asshole behaviour, plain and simple.

>You are killing the golden goose by trying to force people toward the app

I think this is the the type of requests that shows the disconnect between the HN crowd and real users. The majority of users will use the app. It's entirely in reddit's benefit to push the app, that's where they have complete control and can add more tracking and ads without the hindrance of ad/tracking blockers.

old.reddit.com is all I use but some new features (like polls) are already a second class citizen and I don't see it surviving long down the line.

>The majority of users will use the app.

In the same way that the majority of users use pintrest. Until you train them to close the site out of reflex.

You bring up a good point. There is certainly a line, which, when crossed, will nudge more users to download the app, but also make the site unappealing to the point of avoiding it or clicking away. This might be a long-term, difficult to track&diagnose consequence of the dark pattern.

Reddit is smarter than digg though - they know they need to keep their legacy and leader users happy - because once influencers (real ones, not Instagram users) leave the site will stop being culturally relevant.

The fact they’ve kept the old site still running for so long (4 years now?) I think it evidence they’ll keep it around. I don’t think it’s costing them anything.

>I don’t think it’s costing them anything.

It's almost certainly costing them LESS, since there'd be less of a focus on development AND it'll use less bandwidth due to smaller preview thumbnails and no preview video... that's probably outsourced to a different cdn but whatever.

Yeah, I asked my girlfriend some question about reddit, and she said "I don't know, I just use the app."

In all fairness, at this point they’re using data to guide their decisions on official platform support and features. But agreed that the mobile web experience and native app experience should be closer tied, and users shouldn’t be pushed so aggressively to the app. I can only imagine the amount of work it would take to refactor that codebase...

I'm not a reddit fanboy anymore (I was a decade ago) and there are a few annoying pop-ups/dark patterns here and there, but reddit.com in firefox on iPhone 11 works seamlessly for me - logged in and not.

All those "it's better on the app" pop ups make me sad for the web team that had to implement an interstitial trashing their own work.

I absolutely hate being forced into using the app. The screen real estate that it takes up, the constant nagging, the deprecation of features in favor of an app. It’s anti-user.

On desktop I either use the old.reddit.com link, or I use the Reddit Enhancement Suite browser addon that forces the same look. If that UI ever goes away, I'll honestly stop using Reddit; the new UI is aggressively horrible.

Similarly, on my phone I use Reddit is Fun which again, gives a good UI where their first party app and mobile web view are both aggressively horrible.

Reddit is a valuable resource and full of some great communities, but it's been in steady, gentle, decline for years as the company focused development on bizarre distractions.

Also, there seems to be A/B testing w.r.t email id requirement when signing up on web i.e. it's not optional all the time.

Doesn't seem to be the case with mobile app, last time I checked.

Seems like another way to push App adoption.

I would be happy to switch over to app only if it actually worked. The UX is so horrible for expanding collapsing threads. If I click on a deep link I have to press back n times to reach the landing post for the deep link.

I gave up and got the app, but f* them seriously for all the shady ux forcing you to get the app, never experienced something that extreme

>You are killing the golden goose

There was never a golden goose, Reddit revenue numbers are not good and have never been good.

This is precisely the sort of strategic, business-wide direction that is decided and set by boards of directors.

Amen to that! They're so incredibly pushy about the app that it's a red flag in and of itself.

Posing the question to gain more familiarity with African-Americans in tech: who were the other candidates for this position?

It’s a board seat for a company that produces a cultural product, there is no reason it had to be another person in tech, though there may have been an unstated intention to make sure that the representation of YC associated individuals on the board stayed the same or increased.

There was a reddit announcement the other day that stated /u/kn0thing was stepping down from the board and requested that a black person fill his place.

https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/gxas21/upcom...

are boards not considered employees. feel like this would violate labor laws.

They are not.

Is this related to resignation of one of the co-founders in the last week who said among other things "...I urge my position to be filled by a man of color" or is this an unrelated story? Just want to understand that context.

He seemed like the obvious choice, so, seems like a jerk move to blast out a virtue signal for yourself at his expense.

Canonical source: https://redditblog.com/2020/06/10/reddit-welcomes-michael-se...

Ok, we'll change to that from https://angel.co/today/stories/reddit-names-y-combinator-ceo.... Normally we don't move in the direction of corporate press releases, but in this case the original article has so little information that we might as well.

Also, the other article's title ("Reddit names Y Combinator CEO Michael Seibel as Alexis Ohanian's replacement") seemed to be leading to all manner of misunderstandings in the comments, such as Michael becoming Reddit's CEO, or Reddit taking over HN.

I was interested in comparing to what the previous welcome blog post was like:

> Reddit Welcomes Porter Gale to Board of Directors > May 28, 2019

https://redditblog.com/2019/05/28/reddit-welcomes-porter-gal...

Interesting. Thank you.

Please get rid of the flow where it shows me other threads when I click on the comments of a current thread. I'm never going to switch to a new thread from the comments. I just want to read the comments.

Why don't we just tell it like it is? The majority of comments here reflect the fact that Reddit is a garbage site run by a garbage company. Used to be great, more garbage every day. They leverage network effect to abuse their users and to suck. I look forward to the day they fail and the free market replaces them.

The quality of engineering is certainly either just totally incompetent or willfully bad. The new site is a mess. It's mind-bogglingly slow, and it feels like it was built by 10 junior React engineers who were given 3 weeks to complete it.

It's worse in every way. Significantly slower, less information, more ads, more distractions, dark patterns everywhere and it just looks bad.

When you see the behavior of the leadership of the company it's no surprise they manage this level of incompetence.

The manipulation by power mods, advertising agencies and political shills is unparalleled.

I have quite an intricate system build up to get the most quality out of reddit as poossible —it’s still quite bad, but it’s better. I have been thinking of making a blog post or soemthing about it.

- I have a multireddit with select magic the gathering subs

- I have a multireddit with select tech subs

- I have a multireddit with general high quality subs

- My “all” feed has HUNDREDS of subs filtered off. This is a life long excersice. Whenever I see a meme on “all”, i filter that sub away.

I have customized FB as well, removing every CS element on the site except the shortcuts list for groups on the left, where I can acess a few important groups.

My main problem is Twitter now. Why the fuck is every american news in the form of a tweet? The site is awful to use, and I really don’t want anothet SoMe account.

I would love to read such a blog post!

Muting words on Twitter might help

I mute 3000+ accounts and 300+ words.

It doesn't really help, every time something happens in America theres a new word you have to mute, also Twitter doesn't respect certain hashtags mutes if they have a custom icon and people retweeting things bypasses the mutes sometimes.

Twitter could easily just solve all this by adding a huge "Politics On/Off" switch in their preferences and then people who for mental health reasons or just because they're not there for that (e.g brand customer support workers) but they'd never do that because I suspect they ideologically think its more important to control the flow of political information that is broadcast to their users even if its at a great detriment to their users mental health.

I don't want to be on Twitter, I was forced on Twitter because RSS was killed by Google Reader and all the journos/bloggers said "Just use Twitter, whats the big deal" now the only way to get the information I used to get before is with an unwanted side order of politics.

Depending on what exactly you want, nitter.net is a fairly good twitter client, although you need to use an rss reader to follow particular accounts.

wow, thanks.

EDIT: here are ways to automate https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/wiki/Extensions

Oh come on. Reddit was never great. It has always been the taint of the internet. There are worse places to hang out, but not by much.

I feel you, but alas it's by no means guaranteed that the "free market" would replace it with anything better. The same pressures would exist on any replacement, and those pressures all point to what you're calling garbage. We're lucky that something as quirky as Reddit got to succeed as well as it did.

It would be awesome if we could collectively get to the point where growth didn't have to trump everything else, so exploiting people's attention didn't have to dominate everything else, so more interesting and long-term satisfying things could flourish. It's unfortunately not clear what the path from here to there might look like.

I think about this a lot because Hacker News, for all its problems and fractiousness, is in sort of a blessed position where we're not subject to those same pressures and can optimize for other things. But it's also two orders of magnitude smaller than Reddit, which means we're not facing the same problems at all. If I think about facing those problems at that scale, the phrases 'sheer terror' and 'passing out' come to mind.

You do an incredible job with Hacker News! For those of us interested in the subject matter I feel this place is in the top 5 sites on the Internet.

The irony here is that while Hacker News is not growth-driven and that's surely part of what makes it great, the bills are paid by a firm that couldn't be more focused on growth.

Here's a thought, which is probably far too political for its own good but oh well. The characteristics of the software industry (both the ones we love and hate) boil in great part down to IP and business law... why not get behind legal reforms that would mitigate the growth at all cost environment. For instance if America had a better antitrust framework then some of the more predatory business plans out there might never have been written. And Stallman, the FSF etc. have been out there for many years pushing us to think about IP in a way that has had enormous societal benefits.

I’ve often thought that the only way a reasonable media source / online forum can survive and maintain its values is as an add-on project to something else. The profit motive doesn’t seem to function well when it comes to information.

You can find any number of comments on Reddit but also on Slashdot (at least up to 2015 or so) whose quality is higher than many comments here.

They are drowned in the noise, but on Reddit it is very easy to read past the noise.

Here the noise is usually someone trying to sell you something while pretending to be innocent or defending his employer while pretending to be innocent.

Much harder to read past that, also since the moderation claims it never happens.

I'm not logged in to reddit on my work machine but sometimes end up there during research. Using one of the old reddit redirect extensions is the only way to have a decent experience while logged out.

Whoever decided to only show two comments with no children for the current post for logged-out users is scum.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/old-reddit-re...

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/old-reddit-redirec...

I am almost unwilling to advertise this, out of fear that they might disable it if it gains a lot of traffic.

But... reddit has older versions still online.

Desktop: old.reddit.com

Mobile: reddit.com/.compact

In fact you can just append the '.compact' to any reddit link on mobile and it will render it more sanely.

The day either of these features get disabled, is the day I will stop using the platform.

edit: typo

old.reddit.com along with the RES plugin and an ad blocker almost make the site usable.

I have no idea how people use the new layout with a standard browser.

For now you can opt-out from redesign in reddit settings.

I leave this turned off just so their analytics show me bounce to old reddit every time I get the new one. Luckily I don't browse it enough for this to be a large inconvenience for me.

There's also browser extensions that will redirect all traffic to reddit.com to old.reddit.com, for those of you who want to browse the site in its ok-to-use form and not create an account.

>I'm never going to switch to a new thread from the comments. I just want to read the comments.

You might not, I might not but someone must be? I guess... because even Twitter is choosing to just show random tweets from elsewhere under a tweet now instead of the replies.

The Twitter mobile site does this and it's infuriating. You read the thread and suddenly the content does not totally makes sense in the conversation, until you realize the dark pattern and that you actively have to click a link above to see the rest of the thread.

There is now a triangle between YC, Reddit and China via Tencent's $150M Series D investment in Reddit.

I wonder which YC startups form this triangle. Certainly having the CEO is a kind of a big deal.

Why stick to the insular Silicon Valley club and not get someone who's devoted their life to civil rights? There are a ton of community activists who could actually bring a fresh perspective.

EDIT: I do not mean to question his particular qualifications or his commitment to change, only to comment on the fact that it could have been someone from a different walk of life. Tech leadership in Silicon Valley does not appear inclined to affect change.

Presumably the duties of a Silicon Valley board member would center on running a Silicon Valley company, which a Silicon Valley CEO would be uniquely qualified to do.

Which isn't great, because more of the same means more of the same.

This is exactly my point. They brought someone in who presumably is going to see Monthly Active Users as the metric to live or die by when what the world needs from Reddit/Twitter/FB is a more social-good focus. It might be worth it to shed a few users and lose a few ad dollars to make positive change on their platforms but with a Silicon Valley CEO on the board that is unlikely to happen.

Let me know when you figure out how to build a social network that can profit from social good.

These days, profit and social good are rarely aligned.

This reads to me as a stunning indictment of social networks and profit more than it does a defense of Reddit's board choice and their potential motivations.

> This reads to me as a stunning indictment of social networks

Or more generally, going back to the grandparent post here, this reads to me as a stunning indictment of Silicon Valley...

It's not one or the other. They already have the entire rest of the board focused on profit. All we're asking for is one person focused on social good.

What exactly is 'social good', in your mind?

Social good is presently defined as "whatever the mob says it is at the moment". If that mob wants to hate on something, it must be virtuous to hate it. Just go look at the front page and see what I mean.

Please stop taking HN threads further into flamewar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Making purely symbolic corporate gestures in response to popular social issues and banning everything that doesn’t fit the mold.

It's not that complicated. Start by working to deal with the platform being used to spread racism and hate speach and go from there.

Board members aren't really in a position to work on specific problems - their role is to set high-level priorities, and Reddit's already indicated fighting hate speech is a priority. If you want someone who's empowered to make specific concrete changes, that's not a board member.

There's some glaringly obvious action they could take in a moment if they actually wanted to do something about fighting hate speech. They don't.

No, and there are some very good reasons to not do that.

A board is empowered to fire management who "indicate fighting hate speech is a priority", but who's actions show that's barely ever more than PR blowback driven lip service...

I happen to be a member of a subreddit you'd probably describe as "racism and hate speech." Obviously I find some redeeming value there.

IMO the direction you're describing seems...reactive? I mean, sure, if you don't like racism and hate speech, work to get rid of them, but there's a lot more to social good than that.

Frankly I think Reddit should actively try and fragment itself a bit---give mods more power, let communities become more distinct. Maybe allow mods to add js, or let subreddits host SPA's, etc. Don't encourage subreddit enmity, but tolerate it.

Reddit has a lot of users, but they don't really do much except talk and provide ad impressions. This feels like a waste, considering they're on a compute platform.

What subreddit would that be, if you don't mind me asking?

I'd rather not say. I happen to like it existing.

It is that complicated.

How do you deal with balancing free speech and a healthy market place of ideas with stopping the spread of racism and hate speech.

How do you contribute to countering these ideas you don't like instead of causing them to just move to another platform and increase division of opinions as people stop talking to other.

How do you avoid moderation actions against some communities negatively impact other communities as the people from the 'banned' community flee to the unbanned one.

How do you ensure consistent high quality moderation without going bankrupt.

The list goes on and on. High quality moderation is not a solved problem, we don't really even know what it looks like at scale.

What is social good focus to you? If you mean “bring onboard the platform more of what’s currently going on outside”, then I can’t really imagine reddit going any further than they did, other than putting some kind of a conservative-busting CAPTCHA.

But I think having a designated social good person on the board would encourage the other members to stop thinking about social good on their own, in the same way that hiring a CFO means the CEO stops thinking so much about finances.

> lose a few ad dollars to make positive change

Don't think there is a single company during the entire reign of capitalism that this has happened.

Additionally, Reddit is owned by Advance Publications which is pretty much entirely the Newhouse billionaire family. Don't think we've every seen such as a thing as a compassionate old school billionaire. Their other major holding Condenast, is presently embroiled in accusations of racism/discrimination despite portraying themselves as 'allies'.

By hiring Michael Seibel they do exactly what a profit driven company would do. Hire an incredibly competent person who espouses the same values (cut throat Silicon Valley ideology), has been molded by the same kind of people (Ivy league education), and serves as a great "UNO reverse' card for any accusation of the company unilaterally chasing money over ethics.

If an activist was hired, they would steer the company into a direction that matches their lip service and not actual intentions.

and I don't mean to say it is an evil thing to do or something. It is entirely in line with what almost every other company does. It is a perfectly capitalistic thing to do and will change nothing. As was the original intention.

Wasn't Dick Costolo a standup comic?

That doesn't really make their calls to diversity in any way believable.

Diversity in backgrounds, not diversity in skills. You don’t hire incompetent board members to check a box anymore than you hire programmers who can’t program to check a box.

I am not against his hiring, he seems like a really smart and successful guy. Hopefully he didn't get hired because he is black, because that doesn't really indicate a diverse background.

Presumably for the same reason you wouldn’t get a civil rights activist to replace the captain in a Navy boat. We need people fighting for civil rights, but we also need to create room for people from diverse backgrounds to do all of the rest of the work that needs doing.

They're not bringing in a new CEO. All people are asking for is _one_ outsider voice on the board.

> All people are asking for is _one_ outsider voice on the board.

I'm curious what people think the end result of such a thing would be. Does having an outside voice actually contribute to better outcomes for the company? Is there a reason people couldn't just advocate for the current board to listen to other people in their time rather than having a dedicated "outside voice" position? I've seen outsiders come into companies before and fail miserably to accomplish anything because the culture is to not listen to an outsider.

It seems like virtue signalling position to take (advocating for one outsider voice rather than systemic change). Who cares if you get a person who is an outsider on a board if it doesn't fundamentally change things. If you want fundamental change, you'll need to kick all those people out and/or shutdown the company. One person would be ignored.

You know this is true because we all do this at work already. We've all encountered someone who is that "outside voice" in one way or another - they promptly get ignored in a discussion. "Here's Jim with his crazy ideas - again. :eyeroll:"

You know what? You’re right. Let’s call this what it is: pure virtue signaling.

Now that that’s done, what’s next? How can we boost the signal? I like this particular virtue. I think it’s worthy and achievable and more people should be able to tune into it.

Admittedly I’m biased as a person with a few differently complexities of melanin in my skin, that has been treated like an outsider in so many different ways, but hell if were signaling virtues let’s be upfront and own this shit and do some good with it.

What’s to lose? The integrity of Reddit because they put a black man at the helm? Eh. Worth a shot in my opinion.

Does having an outside voice actually contribute to better outcomes for the company?

US corporations seem to think so - zillions of businesses have outside directors, it's an established practice.

> Does having an outside voice actually contribute to better outcomes for the company?

Well, gee, I don't know, maybe having someone ask why it always takes being in the news before Reddit's management decide that it's a bad idea to host underage porn or literal Nazis, rather than, you know, treating it as a bad idea.

This is a really poor analogy. The position of captain of on a warship is almost entirely unlike that of a corporate board member and corporate board members often represent external interests.

> This is a really poor analogy. The position of captain of on a warship

Trying to show viewpoints in the clearest and most concise way, is the height of discourse.

Making a backdoor point by claiming "poor analogy" is basically noise on noise. It muddles both the original point and fails to make a coherent followup. Defining a different set of criteria for what to compare on, does not change the initial comparison in a meaningful way.

Define an interpretation (which may get clarified) to focus in on an objection, then form a second viewpoint.

What is the specific 'backdoor point' you take issue with? Comparing a thing to a thing that is not that thing is not 'the height of discourse'. The comment made a point, I made a different point. Which is not necessarily the height of but at least qualifies as discourse. I'm not sure what to make of an objection that ends with exhorting me to define an interpretation.

> Comparing a thing to a thing that is not that thing is not 'the height of discourse'.

That isn't what I said. I will re-quote, that which was stated plainly:

>> Trying to show viewpoints in the clearest and most concise way, is the height of discourse.

It's usually not worth it to engage with someone who ignores the content, which they are ostensibly criticizing. I will try to answer the main thrust of your post, as a courtesy (you may interpret it as a rehash).

> What is the specific 'backdoor point' you take issue with?

Creating a second interpretation of an analogy, rather than clarifying (or rephrasing) the point being made.

> The comment made a point, I made a different point

This is no different than posting "I disagree." AND "I think this..." but without clarity in why you disagree on the original point (not even sure you understand what the original point of the analogy was supposed to be), because you chose to piggy-back with similar terms by using a completely different analogy and implying that it invalidates an argument that was never articulated. This is disingenuous, at the core.

You do know that analogies very often compare too very unlike things for the express purpose of their difference, right?

“Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face” is very rarely compared with cutting off actual body parts.

Metaphors, similes, idioms, etc are not the same thing as analogies. To make an argument by analogy the things you're analogizing have to be at least somewhat analogous. These plainly aren't. It's possible rayiner thought Siebel would become reddit's CEO. But other than that, it takes a great deal of weird intellectual contortion to compare 'captain' to 'board member'.

> To make an argument by analogy the things you're analogizing have to be at least somewhat analogous. These plainly aren't.

Plainly to you, but perhaps your mind is just overly constrained when it comes to analogies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

Captain is to ship as board member is to ______?

Captain is to helm as board member is to ______?

Captain is to first officer as board member is to _____?

Reddit is first and foremost a business. Does that answer your question?

Because the role of a board member is to help run a business

Suggesting that you can fix ethical issues in a company by putting a civil rights expert on the board, is a bit like saying you can make a software company secure by putting a bouncer on the board!

It doesn't make a lot of sense! These issue issues are structural, and run a lot deeper than board representation optics.

> Why stick to the insular Silicon Valley club and not get someone who's devoted their life to civil rights? There are a ton of community activists who could actually bring a fresh perspective.

They would. But the sad cold truth of the matter is that no one wants a fresh perspective. They just want to virtue signal the mob as much as they can to preempt the mob storm troopers before they get stoned and cancelled without affecting their business, which is why the pick is a Silicon Valley insider, someone they are sure knows what's best for business and won't try to destroy the business.

> Tech leadership in Silicon Valley does not appear inclined to affect change.

Exactly. Everyone wants change and revolution and mob violence as long as it is outside their gated community. No one, either the rich black NBA players or the Pirates of the Silicon Valley, want change and mobs in their gated community. They really like it as it is.

Why let the Civil Rights Establishment define what civil rights mean. Left-wing racial justice activists shouldn't be allowed to monopolize the term to mean the advancement of their vision for the world.

In any case, what Ohanian asked for was that a black person take his place. Not that his replacement be prominent in so-called Civil Rights circles.

An accomplished black tech entrepreneur as a board member does more for the reputation of black tech workers than a lifelong activist whose main occupation has been disseminating ideology.

Great success for all of us seibel's out there! There are dozens of us!

Congratulations Michael!

Good luck mwseibel!

Congrats Michael!

Serious question - since Ohanian has publicly stated that he urged the board to replace him with black candidate, is there a possibility that could face an EEOC charge?

Perhaps this doesn’t apply, as there may not be “applicants” depending upon how their bylaws are set up - without applicants I’m not sure who would have standing.

Just because Ohanian asked doesn't mean they had to do it. One can therefore conclude that they still chose a suitable candidate and would have chosen a differently colored candidate could they not find a suitable black candidate.

I think it's all fine. But do you, or anyone else, really believe anything but a black person was going to be picked?

They said that they were going to honor his wish...

I saw media coverage claiming the board agreed to his request. I don't know how accurate it was, though.

Reddit publicly committed to selecting a director based on race.[0]

Hiring and firing in the US based on race is typically unlawful, even if the candidate is qualified. You can’t use race as a qualification.

It’s a challenge to the laws, and I assume Reddit(or Conde Nast) wants to raise it.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&...

Perhaps I am naive, but I'm going to guess that whoever Reddit's counsel is was briefly cleared on this.

Absolutely. It’s a bet. Heads, it works. Tails, Condé Nast becomes known for litigation against the Trump DOJ, fighting against systemic racism.

For the lawyers, it beats mopping up Bon Appetit’s editor in brownface.

So requiring to pay for a position only for a specific skin color is not actual systemic racism, as long as color is not white, because white people are racists and this fights against that, or am I completely missing the mark?

I'm sure people here are also well versed in silicon valley HR hiring practices regarding skin color based quotas.

I think OP's point has to do with the perceived value of their moral signaling vs the actual morals themselves.

It is a win-win for Reddit in terms of perception, whether they have to fight a case because of it or not. If anything, this would be an 'any publicity is good publicity' situation.

Now if it is actually inline with a truly moral stance...who cares. In this system there are only 3 morals. Money, money and more money.

I was explicitly not taking a position on the action itself. I’m honestly interested to see how this might open a company to litigation.

1. A director looks more like an employee post-AB5, so it could be employment discrimination in California.

2. Independent contractors are protected against some race-based mistreatment in California.

3. The Unruh Act prohibits California businesses from race discrimination in offering “advantages” and “privileges” to non employees.

4. The next employee fired will have a much better case that their employment was terminated based on race — as Reddit openly does make decisions based on race.

Granted, there are responses to all of these. Maybe even constitutional defenses. Maybe they’ll argue some other state’s laws apply, but all US states have pretty broad non discrimination laws — for a reason.

Section 2750.3 of the California Labor Code was added by AB5, and specifically excludes board members as employees.

Like many things around AB5, that's not straightforward. They'd have to severely limit his actual involvement to avoid employee status.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/do-directors-avoid-empl...

A director of the company will easily pass the ABC test anyway. Especially given that he's a director at lots of other companies and has an existing full time job.

In the past, SCOTUS has ruled that laws banning discrimination only grant new rights to the group the legislators were interested in helping. So anti-age discrimination laws only prevent discriminating against the old, not the young. If you understand the politics of race in America, it will actually not be very interesting to see how US courts will rule here.

The fact that you can write “We are an equal opportunity affirmative action employer.” and not get sued gives the lie to this. The plain reading of the law and how it is interpreted and enforced are at odds.

The problem is you're missing an important aspect: members of the board of directors aren't employees.

One, you can't use race, gender, etc unless it's relevant to the job, but here it could be seen as being relevant to the job. Two, a board director position is not a job, and so it's not covered by this law.

I’m sure they’ll argue whatever they can. AB5 makes it more difficult to not be an employee in California. And there are far more non-discrimination laws than “employee.”

A member of the board of directors of a company is not an employee.

If you think some specific, non-employment nondiscrimination law is relevant here, please cite it. But note that this is a shift in your previous position, which is that this is a job.

Had to go back and check, given the bold assertions of others in the thread.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/do-directors-avoid-empl...

It's worse than just illegal, now that they announced that, everyone will assume his skin color is the only reason he was appointed (or at least a major factor) - despite an impressive resume.

Reddit hasn't been owned by Conde Nast for a long time.

Board members aren't employees, so discrimination rules don't apply. In fact California already has a law requiring discrimination based on gender (another protected class) for boards. All California companies must have one female board member and have at least two by 2021.

Heh. It’s still connected by the old Newhouse empire at the top, but you’d know that better than most, I’d wager.

EEOC says "In most circumstances, individuals who are partners, officers, members of boards of directors, or major shareholders will not qualify as employees."

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-2-threshold-issue...

For one thing a board position isn't a job.

Also for some reason whenever a company tries to fight discrimination some people accuse them of discrimination, it's wierd

It’s kind of hard to argue that excluding candidates based on the color of their skin isn’t discrimination. Keep in mind that black folks aren’t the only minority in the US. All the rest just got a giant middle finger.

Now you can rationalize it by saying that this was bringing some balance the representation on the board, which is also true. That’s fair. But it’s still discrimination.

I am sorry for him. I know as a fact that he’s brilliant and fully deserves the position, but given the circumstances (Ohanian resigning and calling for someone black to replace him) he will always have to live with people having the reasonable doubt that he didn’t arrive there for merit alone.

You could say that to any "first X to become/do Y"

Obama? How would that even work? Bush saying hey guys, I believe we should...

He got there on merit.

No; some of the first to become have become them in spite their being special (a black, a white, a woman, etc).

More like "first to be appointed to"

There rarely negative connotation attached to accomplishing something or earning something based on merit and not some other factor. It's seen along the lines of nepotism.

Anyone that remotely thinks that is an idiot. Michael is a fucking force of nature and one of the most impressive people you will ever meet. Seriously, if that thought ever comes up in your presence attack it head on because the person expressing it needs a big fucking gut check.

Honestly, even you saying this is BS.

That’s not about Michael, we both agree on his outstanding qualifications and on the fact that he fully deserved the job.

That’s about hirings based (also) on skin color rather than merit alone.

BS. the passive aggressive argument used to undermine efforts to build more representative colleges, companies, and institutions is just a subtle form of racism that doesn't get applied to white people. I don't really see people make the same argument about hiring legacy applicants, college friends, or former coworkers, all of which tend to be similar people demographics. Sure maybe it isn't explicit racial bias but if the decision maker is selecting from a pool of already racially filtered candidates the effect is the same.

So yes, it is about Michael because he has to deal with this crap of people "just asking the question".

99% of the world, and 99.999% of reddit, has no clue who he is. Nor do they know anyone that has first hand knowledge of working with him. All they'll know is the the way the previous guy stepped down, and what he requested.

I understand it's a terrible position to be put in.

I think only a small percent amount of reddit and a smaller percent of the world will know the way Ohanian stepped down or this guy stepped in.

For most people it will be "I'm on the board of reddit." "Oh, cool."

For people who think it was because of skin color, they may think less of him or of reddit, but presumably he made that choice going in and is okay with the costs and benefits. I have a rare (and not at all serious) medical condition. If reddit said they were selecting board members only with this condition I would happily apply and take the position even if everyone would say I only got it because of my condition and even if that were true. The cost is people would think I benefited from luck or circumstance and the reward is being able to meaningfully influence a major website and money. Hardly seems like a terrible trade to me.

People are acting like Seibel's about to assume the role of President of the Universe.

It's just the reddit board. If it's so awesome, can you name the other people who are on it, as of today?

Guaranteed that 95% of the people reading this did not know that this august institution also includes, and would not have known were it not for this comment:

Sam Altman (famous, not surprising) Robert Sauerberg (probably less famous than Seibel before being named to this) Porter Gale (ditto)

I'm sure these are good people, doing important work. But there's 4 of them in all, Seibel's just one, and the net effect may be less consequential than people here imagine.

I thought Keith Rabois was on the board too.

This led me down an interesting rabbit hole. It turns out that Rablois left and Porter was his replacement. I see that Rabois was on the board in ‘16 from a comment, but I don’t know the timeline behind this.

>Honestly, even you saying this is BS.

"I want my replacement to be a black person" -> black person is hired -> "were they hired because of their race?"

You: How dare you even imply they were hired based on their race!

If anyone is bullshitting anyone here, it's you bullshitting yourself. The sheer mental gymnastics you're working through here to be outraged at the above must take a terrible toll.

This is to say nothing of the candidate. I'm no judge of Board of Director candidates, and largely feel it's entirely based on connections and not what you the person is capable of, but his resume and presence in the industry has obviously been stellar. I wish him well in dealing with the utter cesspit that is 2020 Reddit.com.

Except that no one says white people that hire friends--most of which are white friends from their childhood and school background--are racially motivated and yet the impact is white people hire more white people. This implicit bias might not be intended to be harmful, but it is racially informed.

If we, as a society say we need to make a conscious effort to have more decision makers from a variety of backgrounds so that this human tendency to hire friends and people we know can actually result in a broader group of people being able to access opportunity.

I still say allowing people to be passive aggressive and "ask the question" about whether someone is qualified because there was a effort to be inclusive is a way to undermine the credibility of the candidate and this effort doesn't seem to ever be directed at white people. You ever hear someone question another executive for hiring a college frat brother? or someone that worked at the same investment bank? Hiring preferences exist.

Yes - in-group bias is a real thing and is prominent across all races, ethnicities, religions, nationalities etc.

But in-group bias has literally nothing to do with the conversation we're having here.

Yes it does. Building a board and management team that is more representative of the demographics in society is an effort to reduce the effect of in group bias.

This is important because the argument that someone picked with their race in mind to achieve this goal is used to create the subtext that the person would not otherwise have been qualified and is used to undermine their legitimacy and the legitimacy of the goal to eliminate in group bias.

This is a real problem because it distorts the discussion from the real argument. In reality if we want a true meritocracy, as most proponents of anti affirmative action / opponents diversity goals claim then we should want the widest funnel of candidates possible. What we actually have is a small funnel of people that, while not intentionally racist, classist or discriminatory, results in exclusion of many people. We’re all worse of for it.

>Yes it does. Building a board and management team that is more representative of the demographics in society is an effort to reduce the effect of in group bias.

Then when will they include conservatives in the board? They are after all half the population, but there doesn't seem to be any in all of Reddit's board or company.

Are you really conflating the under representation of black people in corporate boards and management with conservatives? I mean seriously, that’s not even a serious argument.

Let’s go ahead and ignore the systematic and historical oppression of minorities and black people in particular, if anything conservatives have dominated business culture and are over represented in leadership positions of companies.

Reddit, if anything is an outlier, not some propped up example of oppression of conservative voices.

But I take your point. And I agree people should hire from across the political spectrum.

"Except that no one says white people that hire friends--most of which are white friends from their childhood and school background--are racially motivated and yet the impact is white people hire more white people. This implicit bias might not be intended to be harmful, but it is racially informed."

Except they do. In fact, you're saying it right now.

And I am getting down voted more than ever before on HN. You really expect me to believe that people question white candidates credentials anywhere near is frequently as minorities? How would you propose we identify an Ivy League candidate that benefited from a legacy boost or a large donation?

I doubt it. Anyone with the slightest knowledge about Seibel knows that he is super competent. What Reddit will judge him on will be what they perceive as hypocritical policy making; loss of subreddit and user power; and the lack of transparency.

I think most of the world doesn't have the slightest knowledge of him, though. This is really sad because everyone I see on here who does know him is saying great things about him.

I think people are interpreting this comment as suggesting what this HN user will judge Seibel on. I don't think that's what arkitaip is conveying. I believe they are just stating the parameters that Reddit has often judged high-profile executives or board members on, e.g., Ellen Pao. The keyword here is "perceive."

I am not sorry for him. What is your definition of merit for a board position?

As far as I know, board positions are often filled based on explicitly subjective criteria, e.g. such subjective criteria might be: Who is currently on the board and what personality/skillset/experience does the board need in order to balance its membership? Who does the company & board need in order to: raise as much money as possible, be introduced to the desired go-to-market partners, look good to customers, [insert any other subjective criteria here] etc.

I am not aware of the concept of objective "merit" when it comes to board of directors appointments.

~corrected for bad grammar~

As disposible as Internet things are, it's nice that we are seeing what "could happen" when disagreements occur (its less valuable now).

Even if Walmart or Amazon disappeared, there would be another company there to fill the void (and very few would miss them), so with online opinion boards being a sithoshi a dozen, seddit4u is not the same thing as reddit.

I don't see how it's in any way or form reasonable.

Of course a lot of jerks and trolls will have unreasonable and frequently racist assumptions that he "wasn't the most qualified" and that sucks

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but good joke if you are.

The other board members are

- Sam Altman, lead investor in Reddit's Series B and former president of YCombinator, the company that gave Reddit its initial funding

- Bob Sauerberg, former CEO and president of Conde Nast, the company that acquired Reddit while YC was the only investor

Unless you think "gave Reddit a bunch of money" is merit, the other board members didn't get their positions through merit alone either. Board seats are almost always purchased as part of an investment or given for political reasons, there's nothing different happening here.

Meh. If someone wants to pay me for the color of my skin, I'll cry all the way to the bank. Not like the Reddit board does anything useful. I'm happy for him.

NOBODY gets board positions based on merit. For an extreme case, see the Theranos board.

This is one of the underlying problems with affirmative action in recruiting and employment. The question that’s difficult to answer is if the end justifies the means. It probably does, but it’s not always clear.

I actually think reddit has fallen in to the opposite trap here. Because of the increased scrutiny that people of colour get when being put in these roles we see this trend that only massively over-qualified PoC are being put in these roles. As a result you end up in a situation where you aim for an increase in diversity but in reality you end up with a handful of people who are rotated through all the possible positions. Simply because everyone wants the signalling of hiring diverse people, but no one wants to take risks when doing that.

Absolute agreed with you here.

I'm surprised anyone agrees to be CEO of Reddit these days. No matter who holds the position, they always end up being vilified by both Reddit's users and its detractors.

Board member, not CEO. The previous title seems to have created some confusions (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23483666).

Ohanian's polite request was worthless. Asking nicely for change doesn't work. Victories must be be seized, then held tenaciously at great effort and cost.

He got just what he asked for, so maybe this example doesn't work for you?

Being a republican, I'm scared of the leadership choices social platforms are making. Michael Seibel is a pro-Democrat and anti republican and anti-Trump.

For god sake, allow reddit to have free-speech and don't censor the voices of "silent majority" in the USA.

P.S 60M American citizens voted for Trump.

I don't see why Republicans can't just use another platform like gab or voat if they think reddit has become hostile to them. Reddit being a private company has every right to control what ideologies are promoted on their pages just as you have every right to start your own reddit clone and moderate it however you feel.

There's even an open source core with which to start from: https://github.com/reddit-archive/reddit

I should also mention, that under capitalism nobody is ever entitled to another person's platform. I can't just interrupt a Taylor Swift concert and start talking about whatever issue I want just because she has an audience willing to listen. Why then should I be able to say whatever I want on Twitter when they are the ones paying to host my content?

Payment processing and hosting aren't treated like phone companies; they're allowed to be discriminatory in who they do business with.

Is there a valid reason for that? No. Is the end result of there being no law forcing financial and manufacturers of modern printing presses like those to do business with everyone a threat to the First Amendment? Absolutely, and I'd argue the state has a compelling interest here to force them.

Until that changes, "just build your own platform" isn't helpful.

You don't have to use a hosting service; you can purchase servers by yourself and run your own datacenter without ever involving a third party.

Payment processors are not required; you can accept physical checks or digital currency such as Bitcoin without involving a third party processor. A bank isn't allowed to close your account unless you do something illegal, so aren't you safe there?

Modern day conveniences like AWS and Stripe are just that - conveniences. You can do what they do on your own. If you manage to find enough paying customers, then there is nothing stopping you from becoming your own manufacturer or payment processor. If you cannot find enough paying customers (in the form of subscriptions or donations), then arguably there is no reason for you to exist anyways.

Not sure what part of "payment processors can discriminate" you don't understand. Even if you purchased your own hardware, your ISP, the payment processor you use to pay your ISP, your registrar, the payment processor you use to pay your registrar, etc. are not neutral entities. That makes "host your own" meaningless.

The payment processor I use to pay my ISP and registrar like...my bank account?

To date I have never heard of anyone having their Internet cut off because their ISP did not like their political views. I am pretty sure neonazis are welcome to use all ISPs, from Comcast to Cox.

>The payment processor I use to pay my ISP and registrar like...my bank account?

Even if it's your bank account, you're still using a payment processor. Even if that's your bank, they can also decide not to do business with you.

>To date I have never heard of anyone having their Internet cut off because their ISP did not like their political views. I am pretty sure neonazis are welcome to use all ISPs, from Comcast to Cox.

Google what happened to Stormfront. Not that I agree with their views, but their ISPs, registrars, etc. told them to pound sand.

What happened to Stormfront was due to them being involved in egging on mass shootings. You are free to say whatever you want but you cannot incite violence. Is that not the system working? They were not banned for being racists; they were banned for being killers.

>What happened to Stormfront was due to them being involved in egging on mass shootings. You are free to say whatever you want but you cannot incite violence.

Promotion of hatred is not egging on mass shootings. Inciting violence is indeed illegal, but they were not taken offline due to that.

>They were not banned for being racists; they were banned for being killers.

Incorrect. They were not taken offline due to a order/warrant/etc. They were taken offline because it was politically expedient for their services providers to.

> Reddit being a private company has every right to control what ideologies are promoted on their pages just as you have every right to start your own reddit clone and moderate it however you feel.

This is the exact same reasoning letter by letter that was used against rock'n'roll at that time by republicans. They also didn't use state censorship, just private companies executing their rights. Just saying.

And rock and roll won, didn't it? Everyone knows about rock bands and listens to rock music these days, and nobody cares about the RIAA. They rightfully lost the war.

It did with significant backlash at some point, yes. The RIAA still exists and has quite a reach. It didn't loose any war and it is of no importance if you like them or not.

The point is that censorship was executed with the help of private corporations to circumvent the societal contract to allow freedom of speech, which includes art/music.

The answer seems very immature to me. Just because we have a president which folks hate doesn't mean companies should just go and represent left idelogies. These platforms were built once by folks who believed in freedom of speech and opinions.

We are clearly leaving *63M+ people in USA when we make content moderation choices which are left-friendly. I'm not into talking politics. I wish these platforms allow freedom of speech which was one of the founding principles in early days of Internet.

> These platforms were built once by folks who believed in freedom of speech and opinions.

Let's not be silly here, these platforms were clearly built by folks seeking to generate profit, otherwise they would all be non profits. Any ideologies expressed by their founders or corporate marketing are only a byproduct of what is "in" culturally, because that is what makes more money.

> We are clearly leaving *63M+ people in USA when we make content moderation choices which are left-friendly

Only in America are these choices seen as "left-friendly." In the rest of the Western world, they are seen as "reasonable."

I actually do agree that Twitter moderation has a problem with conservative thinking. I think that they should drop the pretense that they exist to cater everyone and be more clear in their rules as to what type of speech will get you kicked out of the circle. We all know Twitter is an echo chamber; the least it could do is make you aware of it instead of leading you on into thinking all of your ideas will be accepted by the system.

> P.S 60M American citizens voted for Trump

63 million.

...and 66 million voted for Clinton, and 8 million voted for third party, write in, or independent candidates.

To be fair to Reddit, they've had non-white people on the board before. Like Ellen Pao (who drove me off the platform).

This seems like a demotion. Nothing to celebrate. Reddit is cesspool of bots, disinformation. I find 4chan more civil and interesting.

This gentleman would have been better off turning them down.

Come now. Reddit is Reddit. This reminds me of Paul McCartney's response to people who don't like the White Album. "It's the Beatles fucking White Album".

The issue with reddit is that your experience on it is completely dependent on your own curation of what subreddits you want to take part in. For hobbies I don't think there is any other single website on the internet that can help you get through most beginner to intermediate information, it's curated by a community, usually with the best free resources available being shared, and if it's a small community with decent moderation they usually thrive quite well.

The problem is with the large subreddits, they will always devolve into memefests or the same old rehearsed jokes in the comments where if you've been on reddit for 10 years you learned to just... Skip through.

I believe it'd be really hard to have a /r/AskHistorians on 4chan, the same for the hobby communities I'm part of.

"The problem is with the large subreddits, they will always devolve into memefests or the same old rehearsed jokes in the comments where if you've been on reddit for 10 years you learned to just... Skip through."

But why? I mean who posts this garbage and furthermore who upvotes it?

Who cares. They lost me when they made the site unuseable. Do people actully suffer through that abusive UI?

Please influence the board to stop caving into censorship and let Reddit return to its free thinking roots. As ever expansive “hate speech” policies take root, the website is being co-opted to reflect just one worldview - that of the progressive left. This is dangerous and unwelcoming.

It would be great if conservative and progressive right wing could help to not let those communities devolve into prejudice, racism and eugenics. It is a problem when an ideology attracts the worst in human kind, as much as I hate the authoritarian left.

It’s crazy how people still don’t understand how the internet works differently than meatspace. If an extreme right position eliminates the platform for a moderate conservative, those positions are going to be taken by their enemies, not their allies. The same tactic doesn’t work in the opposite direction because nothing on the left is out of bounds. Because of this double-standard at the extremes, it’s impossible for a moderated Internet forum not to slide ‘left’, and it’s impossible for an unmoderated forum to not slide ‘right’.

Given so much internet and so little real-world interaction, I think we’ve completely lost touch with what ‘regular’ people actually think.

This is assuming it actually attracts those views instead of attracting false flags of those views.

One subreddit I've seen which seems to allow decent political discussion regardless of side has come under attack because they don't censor certain positions. The attacks are done by very blatant new accounts spamming extremely offensive content in an attempt to get the sub flagged. I've had the displeasure of encountering such posts on multiple occasions before mods were able to remove them. It would not be difficult for those posting such content to determine what is the most offensive thing that won't be removed and then focus on posting that content until either mods have to start censoring it or the subreddit becomes overran with that specific content. In the former case they just repeat until they are happy with the new standards on what are allowed. In the latter case the reputation changes and begins to attract people who are primarily interested in the flooding content, effectively ending the sub as being a place of open discussion. The mods are handling it for now, but that is likely to only be for as long as the flood of the targeted attack doesn't overwhelm them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com