• astraeus@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Is Wired owned by Advance? The answer is yes. Condé Nast is a subsidiary of Advance. Advance has a 30 percent stake in Reddit.

    This is why they call it “the Internet’s Greatest Authenticity Machine” because we know there’s nothing authentic about that cesspool. There’s even less authenticity behind a biased news article framing itself as disconnected from the subject. Not once do I see mention of Wired’s relationship to Reddit, if your owner has a 30% stake you should disclose that.

    Edit: even more important is that Condé Nast itself acquired Reddit in 2006, which is where Advance’s significant stake comes from. Is that supposed to be inferred or understood prior to this article? News media needs to be accountable for this kind of reporting.

  • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    If you are looking to talk to actual people and hear actual opinions, the simple fact is Reddit is the best major site for it. There is nothing like it, in particular smaller hobby/technical/interest communities. And I say this as somebody who has a comment history full of “fuck Reddit.“ There is a reason Google searches are only useful if you put “Reddit“ at the end now. If you find the appropriate Reddit thread you are generally getting some of the best advice or info out there, especially with technical issues. For some hobbies/interests, the relevant sub is the only major community with any regular activity.

    Is there astroturfing? Yes. Are there tons of corporate interests manipulating it? Of course. But compared to Facebook, Twitter, etc. it may as well will be public access to their corporate owned cable.

    Obligatory “Fuck Reddit.” And I mean it lol. But the above is still true.

    • survivalmachine@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Well, yes, it was something beautiful and amazing and we all loved it very dearly, or we wouldn’t be so passionate about what management has done to it and continues to do to it.

  • hedge@beehaw.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    So Huffman’s strategy seems to be “Hey, I know, I’ll just follow that Musk guy’s lead; he seems to know what he’s doing!”

    EDIT: Also, just because you can go public doesn’t mean you should. Why can’t tech bros just be happy with something positive they’ve created without ruining it and making people unhappy by cashing in and inevitability enshitifying it? Must be a personality-type issue. I’d rather have happy users (and I kind of doubt that Huffman was starving to begin with).

    • NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t know the answer and I’m not taking a side, but considering how Reddit has never been profitable, I don’t understand how it even still exists. Where does the money come from to keep it running? This question applies to all non-profitable platforms. We know that the executives surely get their inflated paychecks, as do the employees, and the servers keep running (often better than sustainable alternatives), yet the company never makes a profit… How does that work?

      Given that it’s obviously not sustainable, I can understand why “just be happy with that they’ve created” isn’t an option, but that’s the only thing I understand… Everything else is a complete mystery to me.

      I use Discord a lot and I think about this often.

      • millie@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        A business can be lucrative without being profitable. Profitable means the business itself is making a profit; that is, expanding its revenue. Reddit doesn’t need to do that in order to make everyone who works there money. They just need to keep the servers open and do a little maintenance. Reddit probably could be profitable as a business if it weren’t so lucrative for its CEOs, who presumably eat all the profits.

        I agree, though. Profit and growth are poor measures of a business doing what it should be doing, which is providing a valuable product to consumers. Honestly, these days they’re probably a measure that a company has stopped providing value.

          • millie@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’d imagine mostly advertising and premium accounts. I’d be surprised if there weren’t some shady deals going on for increased exposure too.

            • NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              But, correct me if I’m wrong, the whole thing is operating at a loss. It’s spending more money than it receives, including advertising and all. That doesn’t add up.

              • millie@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Only if you count CEO pay.

                Companies don’t even need to be solvent to make their C-levels money.