138 upvotes, 15 direct replies (showing 15)
View submission: /r/IAmA set to private over mod firing
Here is my theory, take it or leave it. Victoria was responding to questions that Jackon never wanted to answer thus making them potentially libellous. Legal action was threatened by Jackson and Victoria was fired for the error.
Comment by techsupport_rekall at 02/07/2015 at 19:20 UTC
119 upvotes, 1 direct replies
so what you're telling me is that reddit's legal team is the dead-hour crew at r/legaladvice? That's not how you back an otherwise stellar employee and that's not how you confront a potential libel challenge.
Comment by TheForrestFire at 02/07/2015 at 19:18 UTC
75 upvotes, 3 direct replies
This actually makes a lot of sense.
So your theory is Jackson responded to those questions in person to Victoria, but never intended for some of them to actually be typed out and shared with a wider audience?
Comment by Dear_Occupant at 02/07/2015 at 21:17 UTC
8 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I thought his answer made sense if you read it like a telephone conversation, which it was. He responded to the last question first, then went on to rebut the idea that he's "set back race relations."
I can understand why that AMA was a huge embarassment for reddit but I don't think Victoria should take the fall for it, if that is in fact the reason.
Comment by butyourenice at 02/07/2015 at 21:34 UTC
4 upvotes, 1 direct replies
But Victoria doesn't get to just "answer". She transcribes what the guest says. I don't understand how she could be held responsible for something Jackson himself said, unless she demonstrably put words in his mouth.
Comment by fukreddit_admin at 03/07/2015 at 00:22 UTC*
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
For this to happen:
1. A politician consults his lawyers within hours (POSSIBLE)
2. lawyers come to a decision within hours (NOT IN THIS UNIVERSE)
3. Reddit admins read the communication from those lawyers within a few more hours (NO WAY X 10)
4. Reddit admins come to a decision within a few more hours (NO WAY x A BILLION)
5. All that happens within like, a day (LOL)
edit: that said I have 0 doubt your theory will become the reddit "truth" because it puts the blame squarely on reddit's hated enemies: Ellen Pao and a noted civil rights figure.
Comment by lurker093287h at 02/07/2015 at 20:17 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
That is a bit of a soft reason to fire somebody without notice and with immediate effect if it's true. Also don't US libel laws make it not worth the trouble to sue people for stuff like that and comment seems like it's in reply to another comment, which has happened at least a few times before iirc.
Comment by Kernunno at 02/07/2015 at 22:14 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
That entire Iama read like talking to an old nearly deaf person over the phone with one bar of service. His responses were scattered, full of malapropisms, and often off point.
And that was the weirdest one.
Comment by apple_kicks at 02/07/2015 at 23:11 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
it does seem like whenever there bannings or sub take downs it over the risk of legal action.
Comment by Okichah at 02/07/2015 at 23:38 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This makes the most sense and the least sense. Just delete the reply, say it was a mistake in another account and go about your day. I dont know if it is even libelous, cause that doesnt make any sense at all.
Comment by MorallyPerverted at 03/07/2015 at 00:02 UTC*
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This seems the most credible reason by miles, although firing a high profile employee with no explanation is not the way to go. Makes one think that they were just waiting for an excuse. Any excuse.
Comment by 303onrepeat at 03/07/2015 at 01:22 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This is what I was thinking. AMA sub is becoming very mainstream and a focal point of this website and where a lot of Hollywood and other important people come to get recognized and got tossed easy softball questions most of the time. It's now a new stop for the publicity tour of people for all sorts of reasons. Combine this with a crappy Jackson AMA, the fact that Reddit now has big Hollywood investors, one of them Snoop Dogg, and I think some big whig complained about Victoria that could be her downfall.
I don't know how many people might of complained but a lot of times if someone makes enough noise a company has no issues getting rid of them to save a relationship. Either that or they just laid her off because they have other ideas for the AMA sub.
Comment by davidreiss666 at 02/07/2015 at 19:19 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Please, let's not actually go crazy. Bad decision is just a bad decision.
Comment by IamGrimReefer at 02/07/2015 at 20:21 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
maybe they were going to give her two weeks and she thought fuck it and went nuclear on jackson's ama?
Comment by [deleted] at 02/07/2015 at 21:29 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
That would be no reason to fire her. Even if it was a fuck up on her part. She has arguably been the most important admin in recent years.
Comment by mrv3 at 03/07/2015 at 01:23 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I have a crazier theory
1. Victoria didn't like IAMA being turned into cooperation ad space... this clashes with Reddits desire for money.
2. Pao saw this woman as competition and like usual had her fired because having a replacement for CEO would mean she no longer holds the position.