Hacker News Reader

Comment by geofft | Hacker News Reader

Relevant, but I think the timeline is a bit subtler than that. (Mostly, the CEO referenced in that story is Wong himself, not Pao.)

- Reddit was acquired by Condé Nast in 2006.

- Founders Alexis Ohanian and Steve Huffman left in 2009.

- Yishan Wong became CEO in March 2012.

- Reddit raised its Series B in September 2014, led by Sam Altman. Wong was one of the investors.

- Wong resigns in November 2014. Ellen Pao becomes interim CEO and Ohanian becomes executive chairman.

- Reddit introduces an anti-harassment policy and bans fatpeoplehate and other subreddits in early summer 2015.

- Later in the summer, Victoria Taylor is fired. Users hold Pao responsible, she apologizes for how it was handled, and she resigns on July 10 under pressure from the board. Huffman becomes CEO.

- One day later, Wong writes the above post.

- One more day later, Wong reveals on Quora that Ohanian, not Pao, fired Taylor.

View on HN

> Later in the summer, Victoria Taylor is fired.

Celebrity AMAs just haven't been the same since. She was, in my opinion, one of the best parts of any of the default subs back then. It was very unexpected when she was suddenly gone with no reasonable explanation, and all the AMAs right around then were absolutely garbage. She did a lot for /r/IAmA.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/3d2hv3/kn0t... is also Yishan calling out Ohanian for reference.

It's interesting how sexual harassment has long-term implications for one's career. You're a VC partner who is sexually harassed by another partner, as a consequence you get pushed out, as a consequence you're forced to take a position at a failing company, as a consequence you're forced to take the role of the fall guy by the failing company's founders, and as a consequence your career in tech is over. It's remarkable how much shit Ellen Pao had to take just for speaking out about sexual harassment at Kleiner Perkins.

It's all power and positioning. That chain of events does a good job of explaining how the soft consequences of speaking out (a little less trust from others, not being perceived as the person you actually want to lead) can lead to real outcomes.

It's hard to know for sure how much she knew about when hired, but without what she'd experienced prior, would she have felt the need to take on this role? Was she viewing her career or reputation in need of rebuilding or strengthening, so that's why she entertained this (and if so, was the outcome expected, or did they throw her under the bus)?

Keep in mind that it was found that all of her allegations of sexual harassment were completely unfounded and she was likely just trying to get a settlement to help her dire financial situation

> it was found that all of her allegations of sexual harassment were completely unfounded

Do you have a source for this?

The courts ruled in Pao v. Kleiner Perkins that Kleiner Perkins did not discriminate against her. I don't think they ruled on whether or not Ajit Nazre sexually harassed her (or others), and evidence for it was presented in the case. I'm pretty sure they did not rule that the allegations were "completely unfounded."

> she was likely just trying to get a settlement to help her dire financial situation

Given the publicity around how her case was the first like it, you'd have to be very, very foolhardy to go into it for financial reasons, especially if you didn't think you had a strong case. And if you were going for a settlement, you wouldn't want it to actually go to court if the other side didn't offer one, you'd just withdraw the lawsuit.

The Vanity Fair piece on her and her husband is a good read. It was written before she became CEO, or really got that much attention. I have no idea how true her allegations were, but she's the sort of person who would take advantage of situations.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletc...

The best commentary I read on her case with Kleiner Perkins was it was an imperfect case with imperfect parties. The press presented it as representative of gender discrimination in the valley, but it was really bad actors on both sides. While I didn't have any personal issues with Ellen, I know people who did, and I can absolutely see her taking advantage of the situation, so it was pretty appalling to see people who don't know her making her a champion of women in tech.

I remember reading this article when it came out in 2013.

When I re-read it today, I finally saw all the obstacles and discrimination that Ellen Pao and Buddy Fletcher had to overcome just to be in a position to be embroiled in scandals like this.

I hadn't read that article before, but I just read it now - I don't see anything in it to indicate that Pao took advantage of situations (at least in the sense of unfairly taking advantage of situations - certainly there's a lot of advantage in the situation of being a VC and this profile paints her as ambitious and driven, but I think it's not what you meant). There's a fair bit in the article to paint Buddy Fletcher as not a great person - money that apparently disappeared from his fund, for instance, and the independent auditor not being that independent. But the article also goes to some length to argue that he tried to convince his wife not to sue KPCB.

This is potentially veering off-topic, but I think it's entirely reasonable for imperfect people to be champions of women in tech or whatever other causes. I know very few perfect people. (In fact one of the common reactions I heard to Susan Fowler's "very strange year" post is how lucky she was that her own behavior was blameless through that year - certainly all the forces that conspired against her had been at Uber and other companies for years before that, but nobody was able to tell a story where they were so clearly faultless, because, well, everyone's human, and sometimes you misjudge things, get into fights where you're in the wrong, etc.)

And in particular I think it's entirely possible - and entirely consistent with the details in the Vanity Fair story - for an imperfect person to have been quite factually sexually harassed and to have suffered for it.

Citation needed. Her sexual harassment claims were false, and she lost her court case. Perhaps what you are seeing is evidence that she is difficult to work with, and bad at her job.

Thanks for this, very helpful. I had no idea Ohanian was the root cause of that incident.

Even on a throwaway, I can't share more, but Alexis royally fucked Victoria on that one. But don't think Ellen didn't have anything to do with it. The management structure at that time was pretty weird.

Why was Victoria Taylor fired again?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com