6 ms·

> For example the CEO edited user’s messages in the r/the_donald to try and create discord between users. This is inaccurate - it was very clearly not intended

> For example the CEO edited user’s messages in the r/the_donald to try and create discord between users. This is inaccurate - it was very clearly not intended to 'create discord between users' and claiming that it was is at best politically biased and at worse a lie.

ALittleLight 7y ago
I just googled it and it seems like he changed messages that were insulting him to insult moderators of the subreddit. The parent's comment doesn't seem wrong to me, if that's true. He altered communications of reddit users to make it look like they were insulting reddit moderators, in such a way as to falsely attribute those insults to the original authors.
- wtallis 7y ago
  You're still spinning it unfairly, by leaving out relevant information. It was a pranking attempt that fell flat, and was neither intended to nor successful in having the effect of surreptitiously turning T_D users against each other. The admin in question quickly admitted to the deed and explained his motives. Attributing other, conflicting motives without further justification is misleading at best.
  - asdfsdafsdf 7y ago
    No you're spinning it by saying "It was a pranking attempt that fell flat". Either way do you really think it's okay for a CEO to "prank" users by silently editing their posts then only admitting to it after being caught. Seems like the "prank" excuse is a spin. If it was a prank he would have done it and admitted it without getting caught in-between. Also, it has to be funny to be a prank, otherwise it's bullying, where was the punchline?
  - derision 7y ago
    It wasn't just any admin, it was the CEO.
  - ALittleLight 7y ago
    It's interesting that you believe you can interpret the motives of others (it was just a prank!) But you object to other people's interpretations. And what a coincidence, your interpretations align with your prior beliefs. Regardless, I think the facts are clear - reddit administrators altered the communication of users such that they appeared to be insulting the moderators of their subreddit. You think it was a "prank". Others think it was malicious. That difference of opinion over the facts doesn't justify your accusations against the parent comment in my opinion.
    - wtallis 7y ago
      > It's interesting that you believe you can interpret the motives of others (it was just a prank!) But you object to other people's interpretations. And what a coincidence, your interpretations align with your prior beliefs. It's interesting that you're still lying about the subject, and calling it my interpretation instead of acknowledging the fact that it's the admin's own professed motives, not ones I am inventing for the purposes of attributing to him.
      - ALittleLight 7y ago
        You are both hostile and disingenuous. I haven't lied about anything. I have correctly stated that the reddit admin altered reddit user's messages to make it look like they were insulting moderators. Is that a lie? I wrote that you interpreted that as a prank. Is that a lie? You've chosen to believe the reddit admin who altered the messages. That's how you have chosen to interpret the events. There are other interpretations of these events. For example, you might suspect that the kind of person who would alter the communications of others to falsely attribute malicious statements to them may not tell the truth once he had been caught doing so. You might think that any professional, let alone the CEO, would realize tampering with your user's data to misrepresent them likely would not be construed as a harmless prank. This will be my final message to you. You are needlessly hostile. You falsely accuse me of lying. You defend altering the data of users to misrepresent them as a "prank". I don't really think you've presented an argument here, other than to blindly trust the word of a person caught in the act of being dishonest and to pretend as if that is the only valid interpretation of events.
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    > You're still spinning it unfairly > It was a pranking attempt that fell flat You're spinning, not them. Even assuming it was a "prank", it was meant to create discord, otherwise the CEO would have chose a different, funnier, more obvious edit. Instead, he chose to make a subtle change and then only admitted it after getting caught.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    Imagine Mark Zuckerberg using FB admin rights to turn a "Donald Trump is the worst president of our generation" post by Biden into "Bernie Sanders would be the worst president of our generation". Would characterizing that as "an attempt to turn democrats against each other" be fair?

ALittleLight 7y ago

I just googled it and it seems like he changed messages that were insulting him to insult moderators of the subreddit. The parent's comment doesn't seem wrong to me, if that's true. He altered communications of reddit users to make it look like they were insulting reddit moderators, in such a way as to falsely attribute those insults to the original authors.

wtallis 7y ago
You're still spinning it unfairly, by leaving out relevant information. It was a pranking attempt that fell flat, and was neither intended to nor successful in having the effect of surreptitiously turning T_D users against each other. The admin in question quickly admitted to the deed and explained his motives. Attributing other, conflicting motives without further justification is misleading at best.
- asdfsdafsdf 7y ago
  No you're spinning it by saying "It was a pranking attempt that fell flat". Either way do you really think it's okay for a CEO to "prank" users by silently editing their posts then only admitting to it after being caught. Seems like the "prank" excuse is a spin. If it was a prank he would have done it and admitted it without getting caught in-between. Also, it has to be funny to be a prank, otherwise it's bullying, where was the punchline?
- derision 7y ago
  It wasn't just any admin, it was the CEO.
- ALittleLight 7y ago
  It's interesting that you believe you can interpret the motives of others (it was just a prank!) But you object to other people's interpretations. And what a coincidence, your interpretations align with your prior beliefs. Regardless, I think the facts are clear - reddit administrators altered the communication of users such that they appeared to be insulting the moderators of their subreddit. You think it was a "prank". Others think it was malicious. That difference of opinion over the facts doesn't justify your accusations against the parent comment in my opinion.
  - wtallis 7y ago
    > It's interesting that you believe you can interpret the motives of others (it was just a prank!) But you object to other people's interpretations. And what a coincidence, your interpretations align with your prior beliefs. It's interesting that you're still lying about the subject, and calling it my interpretation instead of acknowledging the fact that it's the admin's own professed motives, not ones I am inventing for the purposes of attributing to him.
    - ALittleLight 7y ago
      You are both hostile and disingenuous. I haven't lied about anything. I have correctly stated that the reddit admin altered reddit user's messages to make it look like they were insulting moderators. Is that a lie? I wrote that you interpreted that as a prank. Is that a lie? You've chosen to believe the reddit admin who altered the messages. That's how you have chosen to interpret the events. There are other interpretations of these events. For example, you might suspect that the kind of person who would alter the communications of others to falsely attribute malicious statements to them may not tell the truth once he had been caught doing so. You might think that any professional, let alone the CEO, would realize tampering with your user's data to misrepresent them likely would not be construed as a harmless prank. This will be my final message to you. You are needlessly hostile. You falsely accuse me of lying. You defend altering the data of users to misrepresent them as a "prank". I don't really think you've presented an argument here, other than to blindly trust the word of a person caught in the act of being dishonest and to pretend as if that is the only valid interpretation of events.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
  > You're still spinning it unfairly > It was a pranking attempt that fell flat You're spinning, not them. Even assuming it was a "prank", it was meant to create discord, otherwise the CEO would have chose a different, funnier, more obvious edit. Instead, he chose to make a subtle change and then only admitted it after getting caught.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Imagine Mark Zuckerberg using FB admin rights to turn a "Donald Trump is the worst president of our generation" post by Biden into "Bernie Sanders would be the worst president of our generation". Would characterizing that as "an attempt to turn democrats against each other" be fair?