Steve Huffman, the CEO of Reddit, has decided to just keep on talking. After his disastrous AMA helped inspire more subreddits to join a 48 hour blackout, and his dismissal of the protesting subred…
First I don’t see why reddit has to be a for profit organisation in the first place, since that’s kind of the rout of the problem. Users becoming a product that reddit is trying to sell to advertisers. At the same time if reddit would be respectful to users, creators and mods it would be a different story. But they are clearly not, they don’t respect the people who are making reddit work - but feel entitled to the fruits of their labor. That just irks me on a deeply personal level.
My main problem is not even with the API decision but with the way the CEO communicated with the community.
COMPLETELY agree that reddit shouldn’t have developed in a commercial direction, but rather as a non-profit. That would avoided so many problems. That said, even as a non-profit losing money is not tenable.
I also agree that how the CEO communicated is a big part of the problem.
Like I said, I would not have problem wit a mythical commercial reddit making money but respecting the user base. Even less with no profit reddit - making money to be able to function.
Do we know they are losing money? Do we even know they are not making money? It is more likely that they are not making enough money to satisfy the stock holders and give big payouts to the principles.
Generally an organuzation does not need to make money to stay in business. They do however need a positive cash flow and assets need to exceed liabilities generally or at least by enough creditors will not force bankrupcy. So profit us entirely optional. However for a typical stockholder company the profit expectations are unlimited.
If I understand correctly they currently don’t have investers currently since they made this move as part of their attempts to take the company public, so there’s even less of an excuse.
They are a private company, not a public one. That does not mean they do not have investors. They have investors but they are privately held and probably private equity investors. I do not know exactly who or what investor groups own Reddit, but since it is a company it has investors.
Sure, but companies play very free and loose with the definition of “profitable”. Amazon and youtube have both also been said to be unprofitable, but both blatantly make a lot more than they spend. They just do shit like reinvest all profits into expanding the business or paying the board.
And capitalism, as it is now, is set up to demand increasingly more profits each year unto infinity - a flat, steady income for the company and its employees and board members is still seen as a failure. A company can be profitable (as in, made way more money than it spent), and they’ll still say it’s floundering if it didn’t make more profits than the previous year.
Companies are also currently raising prices and claiming they have to because of supply chain problems and inflation, while also making record profits.
And after all that has happened, you’d take what they say at face value? I certainly would not. I take “not profitable” to mean not as profitable as they would like to be to support whatever valuation they are targeting. As far as I know I’ve not heard that their cash flow is negative. It is negative cash flow that puts companies out of business and is the serious thing.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
First I don’t see why reddit has to be a for profit organisation in the first place, since that’s kind of the rout of the problem. Users becoming a product that reddit is trying to sell to advertisers. At the same time if reddit would be respectful to users, creators and mods it would be a different story. But they are clearly not, they don’t respect the people who are making reddit work - but feel entitled to the fruits of their labor. That just irks me on a deeply personal level.
My main problem is not even with the API decision but with the way the CEO communicated with the community.
COMPLETELY agree that reddit shouldn’t have developed in a commercial direction, but rather as a non-profit. That would avoided so many problems. That said, even as a non-profit losing money is not tenable.
I also agree that how the CEO communicated is a big part of the problem.
Like I said, I would not have problem wit a mythical commercial reddit making money but respecting the user base. Even less with no profit reddit - making money to be able to function.
Do we know they are losing money? Do we even know they are not making money? It is more likely that they are not making enough money to satisfy the stock holders and give big payouts to the principles.
Generally an organuzation does not need to make money to stay in business. They do however need a positive cash flow and assets need to exceed liabilities generally or at least by enough creditors will not force bankrupcy. So profit us entirely optional. However for a typical stockholder company the profit expectations are unlimited.
If I understand correctly they currently don’t have investers currently since they made this move as part of their attempts to take the company public, so there’s even less of an excuse.
They are a private company, not a public one. That does not mean they do not have investors. They have investors but they are privately held and probably private equity investors. I do not know exactly who or what investor groups own Reddit, but since it is a company it has investors.
Well they’ve said they’re “not profitable”.
Sure, but companies play very free and loose with the definition of “profitable”. Amazon and youtube have both also been said to be unprofitable, but both blatantly make a lot more than they spend. They just do shit like reinvest all profits into expanding the business or paying the board.
And capitalism, as it is now, is set up to demand increasingly more profits each year unto infinity - a flat, steady income for the company and its employees and board members is still seen as a failure. A company can be profitable (as in, made way more money than it spent), and they’ll still say it’s floundering if it didn’t make more profits than the previous year.
Companies are also currently raising prices and claiming they have to because of supply chain problems and inflation, while also making record profits.
And after all that has happened, you’d take what they say at face value? I certainly would not. I take “not profitable” to mean not as profitable as they would like to be to support whatever valuation they are targeting. As far as I know I’ve not heard that their cash flow is negative. It is negative cash flow that puts companies out of business and is the serious thing.