Hacker News Reader

Comment by atorralb | Hacker News Reader

One thing is for sure, Ellen Pao is not liked in Reddit.

There are certainly parts of Reddit where she isn't liked, definitely. But there are parts of Reddit where they don't like anyone who doesn't let them behave like spoiled, obnoxious children, so I wouldn't consider that indicative of anything.

Because of the ban on groups which actively harass others? Or is there another reason?

Well, she's a woman, which alone is enough to catch a lot of heat on Reddit.

I'm not sure that's accurate. I rarely see women get "heat" on reddit but once someone identifies as a women they seem to get far more comments, many even sexual. I'd say women get hit on versus catching heat.

Dear lord. Are you telling me you believe unsolicited sexual advances in response to any non-sexual thing one might post is desirable to women? News flash: it ain't. If you think that women aren't treated badly on Reddit, go to /R/shitredditsays. If you have a problem with the politics of that group, you need not read the comments. Just peruse the linked posts. A pattern quickly begins to emerge.

I think he just means that sexual harassment is different from "heat", however you want to define that.

To catch heat means roughly the same thing as to catch flak. In other words, to be complained about/insulted/whatever.

> To catch heat means roughly the same thing as to catch flak

Correct.

> In other words, to be complained about/insulted/whatever.

No, that's not what that means. To catch heat or flak is angering / upsetting others due to your actions then being on the receiving of said anger. It has nothing to do with one sided insults.

Not necessarily due to your actions, nor due to wrong actions. Pao is catching heat/flak over removing comments (which there is zero evidence of) or extortion and lying (which suing someone and losing is not) and over banning harassmemt/hate subs (which decision she announces and likely had a hand in, but was a right action).

Maybe it's a cultural thing but I've never seen the phrases "catching heat / catching flak" used when it's not in return of an action (I don't see any official definitions online either but as far as I can tell it's in return of some sort of action). What you're describing just sounds like typical insulting / disparagement.

I don't really know how much evidence is in any of those claims (I thought there was supposedly evidence, not zero, but I really don't care enough to bother looking anyway) as I never really wanted to talk or even fight about anything relating to Pao but I could see that changing the context for catching heat / flak if there is or isn't evidence.

> Are you telling me you believe unsolicited sexual advances in response to any non-sexual thing one might post is desirable to women?

Perhaps you didn't read my post clearly but I said nothing of the sort.

> If you think that women aren't treated badly on Reddit, go to /R/shitredditsays

I said the exact opposite; women are hit on pretty heavily in reddit. I don't see that as being treated well; it's obviously unwanted (at least in the vast, vast majority of the time).

I have no idea where you could get the idea that my post said or even implied anything but women being treated poorly on reddit...

You said that women don't catch heat, which to me meant you thought they were treated well. To catch heat (without a cause) is to be mistreated, and it seemed to me as if you were saying this was not the case. My apologies if I misunderstood you.

> You said that women don't catch heat

Please take a look at my original comment as I did not say that. Women catch heat all the time. All I said was, in my experience, I rarely see it when compared to all of the sexual harassment they receive.

> To catch heat (without a cause)

I haven't seen this phrase used without a "cause"; isn't that just an insult? Can you even "catch heat" without doing anything?

"I rarely see women get 'heat' on Reddit." -- You. I understand now that you were making a comparative statement, but at the time I believed you were making an absolute one.

> "I rarely see women get 'heat' on Reddit." -- You

I'm not sure why you're quoting that; it doesn't support your assertion. Rarely does not mean an absolute don't.

> I understand now that you were making a comparative statement, but at the time I believed you were making an absolute one.

Even if it was absolute I was certainly highlighting a problem with women being sexual harassed on Reddit which you still somehow took as me thinking it's desirable. Worst yet you never corrected your mistake within the editing window so my comment is being downvoted to hell and people probably think I'm supporting the sexual harassment of women.

I think its because of the censoring of stuff which is critical of her and her husband and less about the banning of fat hate subs - See: https://twitter.com/arrington/status/609065906900066304

It especially does not help the fact that her husband was at the helm of a massive scheme that defrauded untold amounts of public workers in regards to their pension

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Fletcher

http://nypost.com/2015/02/18/case-builds-against-former-ny-h...

Who you are friends with says alot about you. Who you are married to says much, much more.

Yeah, so, SHE did not censor those posts. Nor did admins. Sub moderators did. I mean, it even says that in the news articles you posted.

And who hates a woman because of something her husband did? That is just gross, medieval thinking.

You should probably check your facts on this.

I mean, I just read the news articles that that person posted. If you have evidence to the contrary of these stories, by all means bring it to light.

So the larger point is that you are triviallizing legitimate issues whithout yourself having a grasp on what those issues really are.

Uh. Is this apropos of anything? It seems unrelated to the comment you're responding to. Are you a bot?

We could say the same to you?

Are you serious? Do you even know how Reddit works?

Admins also have censoring power. I can't find it, but there was a post by I think /u/karmanaut saying that the admins were filtering out Pao-related content in a way that didn't allow mods to re-approve it.

Nah there isn't.

Let's not forget Ellen Pao's husband is an openly gay male hedge fund manager.

fortune.com/2012/10/25/ellen-pao-buddy-fletcher/

That to me screams that she's a big time financial schemer.

She was unpopular long before the bans though.

The summary I read basically had a few reasons. First that her lawsuit was rather manipulative, with things like refusing to cooperate with investigators after she reported misconduct. Or her classifying a voluntary relationship as coerced.

Additionally, folks on Reddit seem to believe that she coordinated with the previous CEO to take over the job so she'd have a CEO title going in to the lawsuit. Hence the sudden resignation of Yishan for no apparent reason.

There's other things, like refusing to negotiate salaries "because women do worse", which is really just an anti-employee action.

All this was before the banning of subreddits. I also don't find it credible that people dislike her because she's a woman. I don't know if the bits I read are true (they seem well presented, but many false things are), but if so, that's certainly enough reason regardless of gender.

The argument is that the moderation policies are selectively enforced in order to shape the prevailing ideologies expressed on the website.

Reddit's response is that it isn't "safe" and they want to make it that way. If you've been labeled as somebody who makes the site "unsafe" your actions are assumed to be those of an aggressor and an oppressor. If you're somebody trying to make the site "safe" even when you cross the line you're viewed as an oppressed person fighting back.

It's an intentionally uneven playing field and the people it's slanted against aren't happy about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com