I agree that users are behaving like a screaming mob, and also that they are more than that in aggregate. What this all points to, for me, is the question of who can, or should, claim ownership of reddit's success and potential.
It's hard to argue that the users and mods have no stake in the site, but they often don't behave (especially lately) as owners, and instead substitute entitlement and witch hunting for stewardship. And, I would argue, the on-paper ownership (the money) doesn't seem to realize that, mob-mentality or not, the volunteer labor and contributions of users and mods are their primary asset - not an impediment to success or a blank slate that can be reconfigured for greater profit. Neither side seems to have a sense of what their (contested) 'ownership' of reddit's future means.
To make matters worse, I see the communication breakdown around the subject of ownership and its responsibilities as the animating force behind reddit's form over the last few years - which a good many people consider inviolable despite its ad hoc and difficult to define nature. In other words, in the absence of good communication between "ownership" parties, a system emerged organically, without significant top-down guidance, that could define and claim ownership over itself without external challenges to its identity, and thus thrive on a lack of communication.
Now, forced to communicate - even to demand better communication - the unpaid 'owners' in that system have to confront the ownership issue in conversation with investors whose idea of reddit's future is unclear, but seemingly not founded on its current reality. Instead of bridging that gap, the unpaid have chosen to either: 1) try to continue as if nothing has changed, or 2) hope that lashing out and emphatically agreeing with one another will bring the change they want - whatever that is. Or maybe no change at all is the goal. Meanwhile, the on-paper owners of reddit have released placating statements and generally assumed that some tweaks, reassurances, and time are all that is needed to make the changes they want while giving the appearance that nothing has changed.
I think something has to change, and it has to start with the paid and unpaid acknowledging the unpleasant but real validities of each other's ownership claims, and by ditching the assumptions they've formed about reddit in the absence of such honest communication. I don't think that will happen, honestly, and anyway - maybe none of the parties involved really want it to happen. It's practically anathema to what reddit has become.
(Holy huge post! Sorry about that. I'll try to edit it down later.)
Any website lives and dies by their guests. And if they're unhappy, it's something that needs to be fixed because they can move on. Websites are entertainment, and therefore they either please the users or fail. You can't sell ads if no one visits.
I agree that users are behaving like a screaming mob, and also that they are more than that in aggregate. What this all points to, for me, is the question of who can, or should, claim ownership of reddit's success and potential.
It's hard to argue that the users and mods have no stake in the site, but they often don't behave (especially lately) as owners, and instead substitute entitlement and witch hunting for stewardship. And, I would argue, the on-paper ownership (the money) doesn't seem to realize that, mob-mentality or not, the volunteer labor and contributions of users and mods are their primary asset - not an impediment to success or a blank slate that can be reconfigured for greater profit. Neither side seems to have a sense of what their (contested) 'ownership' of reddit's future means.
To make matters worse, I see the communication breakdown around the subject of ownership and its responsibilities as the animating force behind reddit's form over the last few years - which a good many people consider inviolable despite its ad hoc and difficult to define nature. In other words, in the absence of good communication between "ownership" parties, a system emerged organically, without significant top-down guidance, that could define and claim ownership over itself without external challenges to its identity, and thus thrive on a lack of communication.
Now, forced to communicate - even to demand better communication - the unpaid 'owners' in that system have to confront the ownership issue in conversation with investors whose idea of reddit's future is unclear, but seemingly not founded on its current reality. Instead of bridging that gap, the unpaid have chosen to either: 1) try to continue as if nothing has changed, or 2) hope that lashing out and emphatically agreeing with one another will bring the change they want - whatever that is. Or maybe no change at all is the goal. Meanwhile, the on-paper owners of reddit have released placating statements and generally assumed that some tweaks, reassurances, and time are all that is needed to make the changes they want while giving the appearance that nothing has changed.
I think something has to change, and it has to start with the paid and unpaid acknowledging the unpleasant but real validities of each other's ownership claims, and by ditching the assumptions they've formed about reddit in the absence of such honest communication. I don't think that will happen, honestly, and anyway - maybe none of the parties involved really want it to happen. It's practically anathema to what reddit has become.
(Holy huge post! Sorry about that. I'll try to edit it down later.)
Any website lives and dies by their guests. And if they're unhappy, it's something that needs to be fixed because they can move on. Websites are entertainment, and therefore they either please the users or fail. You can't sell ads if no one visits.