SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The BBC are reporting that troubled community website Reddit has lost another female member of its senior team with the resignation of chief engineer Bethanye Blount, only days after the resignation of Ellen Pao. The BBC report continues:
Ms Blount told website Recode she believed Ms Pao had been put on a "glass cliff" - or set up to fail. Victoria Taylor, who oversaw a popular question-and-answer section of the site, was sacked last month.
"Victoria wasn't on a glass cliff. But it's hard for me to see it any other way than Ellen was," Bethanye Blount said in an interview.
But Ms Blount, a former Facebook employee, added that her own decision to leave Reddit just two months after joining, had not been based on gender issues. And new chief executive, Steve Huffman, said he was "confident" that the site could recruit female executives.
The phrase "glass cliff" is used to describe women placed in leadership roles during times of crisis, when positive change is hard to achieve.
[...]
Despite the ongoing turmoil, Reddit is in good financial shape, according to Mr Huffman, also one of its co-founders.
"Reddit has a lot of cash," he said, in an Ask Me Anything session on the site.. "Monetisation isn't a short-term concern of ours."
The site currently attracts 164 million monthly users.
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:11PM
I think defamation (libel and/or slander) is a valid concept that can co-exist with free speech. A person is free to say whatever he or she wants. A person damaged by that speech in a salient and identifiable way (not just "hurt my feelings" -- cost me $x in lost business) is also free to make claim against the speaker and receive compensation if there was a) actual provable defamation (requires falsity), and b) actual provable calculable damages. This is important because the hearers are not always well equipped to evaluate the truth or falsity of the speech, and not because the hearers are sheep or idiots, but because they are separated from the incidents. For example, I have no way to evaluate random statements about Bill Cosby because I know none of those involved and have no association with any of them -- not even remote. If I am misled, it will not be because I'm an idiot, it will be because I just don't know the circumstances (one could say it would be idiotic to form an opinion on such a basis, and I'm partial to that thinking, but at the same time there are many areas of life where we form opinions based on the input of those we see as having special knowledge, and it is important to be able to do this because we can't be experts in all facts, sciences, and arts -- if we could, we'd be gods).
What I object to is a prior determination that some speech should not be made for [being illogical/unreasonable/some other random subjective reason]. FN1 I believe all people should be able to say whatever, and the value of that speech then determined after it has been said, and if there are consequences to that speech, then so be it. To make a pre-speech determination however, is censorship.
FN1: What is or is not logical often depends on the state of knowledge, one's culture, or any other factors. Those most careful take a scientific perspective such as, "our best knowledge to date is Z, thus Y, but if Z proves false eventually, Y will be different." In this sense, what is a logical or reasonable conclusion is not always an absolute.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:24PM
All good points.
I was going to post some cynical wankery but meh. In theory the courts work, and people only get convicted for clear damages. Anyway.
What I say to people IRL these days is, "How can we ever hope to solve our problems if we can't talk about them?"
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:09AM
I think defamation (libel and/or slander) is a valid concept that can co-exist with free speech.
It can't. If the government gets involved and punishes you for your speech (and handing out a verdict in favor of the other party counts as government involvement, even if it's a civil case), then you don't truly have free speech in that case.
It's easier to just admit that you're in favor of some restrictions on free speech.
If I am misled, it will not be because I'm an idiot, it will be because I just don't know the circumstances (one could say it would be idiotic to form an opinion on such a basis, and I'm partial to that thinking, but at the same time there are many areas of life where we form opinions based on the input of those we see as having special knowledge, and it is important to be able to do this because we can't be experts in all facts, sciences, and arts -- if we could, we'd be gods).
When you don't know, just admit that you don't know. Don't be like theists.
A person damaged by that speech in a salient and identifiable way (not just "hurt my feelings" -- cost me $x in lost business)
Speech can't damage you in such a way. Only people who react to the speech in harmful ways can hurt you, but that is their doing and not the speaker's. It's also quite the entitlement complex to assume that you're entitled to other people's money (i.e. "I was making $x a month, but after someone accused me of things I didn't do, I'm making $y a month."); you're not, and that remains so even if they stop giving you their business for bad reasons. You're not actually 'damaged' in any way, because lack of gain can rarely count as harm.
Most people are seemingly not critical enough and are willing to believe too many things that have little to no evidence to back them up. A system that punishes people other than the ones who take the supposedly harmful actions likely just encourages people to become dependent on that system, rather than developing the critical thinking skills necessary to challenge false statements.