Reddit CEO: We're Sticking with API Changes, Despite Subreddits Going Dark | Hacker News Reader

Reddit CEO: We're Sticking with API Changes, Despite Subreddits Going Dark

pcmag.com

10 pointsValentineC8 comments

It's a lucrative business to sell user generated content to AI labs. It'll make way more money for Reddit than ads if they survive this. Imagine if OpenAI needs to pay $20m/year to access Reddit content. Reddit is going to be swimming in money.

I can understand his decision from a business perspective. He just sucks from a PR perspective.

I can’t believe the Board hasn’t taken him to the woodshed yet. Everyone makes mistakes but to make one of this magnitude and combine it with the arrogance he is displaying is unforgivable. This guy is the weakest CEO in the industry.

I've had an account on Reddit for 17 years. Steve Huffman being dishonest and manipulative is who he is. Seems to me that the board is OK with him being dishonest and manipulative because if they had a problem with that sort of thing, he would not be CEO and Reddit would be a different sort of place.

The last time Reddit attracted this kind of attention was probably when Victoria Taylor resigned as CEO (or rather made to resign as some alleged) in 2016. She was very popular for coming up with the whole AMA concept and the one who replaced her (Pao) was quite resembling of the current CEO! Many subs went dark then too and the backlash never stopped until that CEO stepped down or something like that IIRC.

If they are going to take him to the cleaners they're probably waiting for the results of the next couple of days first

Are they serious? Without the community what good use will be the IPO and everything?

The problem is his failure to explain where does that 0.24$ per 1000 api calls come from. He needs to learn to code before learn to CELL.

The most logical theory here is that this is some grand high order strategy to bring it down just like the way of Digg. Even kids don't act in as dumb a manner as this CEO is acting and even if he did act, other board members would have stopped him from such recklessness in ordinary course of events, as the whole firm is on stake.

Could it be a case that they're deliberately letting this happen in order to promote some other social network or fulfill some other high order agenda?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com