People were starting to question whether Reddit had a good CEO and corprate culture already, now its certain to gain momentum.
A lot of people have a natural tendency to always side with the underdog regardless of the facts of the situation, especially when it's one guy vs. any sort of institution (a company, school, whatever). That probably says something nice about humanity, but it doesn't make it any truthier.
How did you jump to the conclusion the CEO's version "was just the facts"? You seem to be saying because he is the boss that he is being factual and the employee inherently was not.
The CEO's spin might be the facts but it would be impossible for anyone who wasn't there to know. That's why an employer wouldn't normally air stuff like this in public, its one person's word against another, and the liability risks are steep.
I'm not basing my comments on which one of the two parties was being truthful, they might both think they are. You would have to do an indepth analysis of the employees performance, and the circumstances of his termination to know for sure.
I'm saying it was really poor judgement for a powerful employer to unload on a relateively powerless former employee, and air what should have been confidential HR information in public like that. If I were applying for a job with the guy I would think twice about working for someone willing to savage an employee in public like that. If I was on his board I'd sure think twice about whether he is the right person for a CEO job.