Subreddit's "strike" over recently hired person involved with pedophiles
- Thread starter Specter Von Baren
- Start date
Reddit seems to have made a bad misjudgement here: they removed a Spectator article (which only briefly mentioned the employee) in order to pre-emptively prevent controversy... which sparked this whole thing off. Had they just left the article up, nobody would have even noticed the passing mention, none of this would have happened. Oh, the stupidity of leaving delicate moderation decisions up to mindless algorithms.
NB. It should be noted that a number of the statements in that quote are disputed or uncertain.
NB. It should be noted that a number of the statements in that quote are disputed or uncertain.
More specifically, they put that name on site wide auto mod. Anyone who refers to You Know Who was suspended, as well as those who link to articles referencing them.
I'm actually a bit disappointed Redditors haven't nicknamed them "pedophile Voldemort" yet.
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,160
- 125
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
I've seen a couple of people using variants of that. But yeah, it's a perfect example of the Streisland Effect in play and why trying to bury information on the Internet simply doesn't work. People will simply post it elsewhere and the censorship will make it only more alluring to seek out.
The real Reddit gold was the children we abused along the way.
I was trying to make sense of this thing last night on Reddit, but I'm too old to fully comprehend these controversies anymore. Like I don't understand why they hired this person in the first place, for like what position? They seem to be some sort of banished politician from the UK. Why hire them at all knowing the controversy that would follow them? Very odd all around, and if it's not a problem why doesn't reddit release a statement instead of doing the streisand method?
Last edited:
I'm definitely not allowed to answer this question.
Hey just posting an update to this story, Reddit has posted an official statement and the person who shall not be named has been fired.
They admit to not properly vetting her before she was hired.
There's a post in r/outoftheloop that describes the situation in explicit detail, I'm not going to link that one here because it's rather graphic.
They admit to not properly vetting her before she was hired.
There's a post in r/outoftheloop that describes the situation in explicit detail, I'm not going to link that one here because it's rather graphic.
Last edited:
Love that nobody can ever manage to vet this woman who repeatedly trips over convicted pedophiles but Iām on dozens of lists for DMing hentai to the ayatollah.
Reddit failed to properly vet someone before hiring them?
"We didn't vet her background"
Jesus Christ google searching her real name reveals most of it, did they just not bother even with that?
It's not even like it's some super common name.
This feels like there was more to this than them just being a mod and active on a Reddit Streaming service thing.
"Politician" is arguably a somewhat exaggerated term for someone never elected to public office. Although this person certainly stood for office, and had minor spokesperson roles for a political party. They certainly needed a change of career and ideally country, because their options may have become quite limited.
I do not think Reddit did anything obviously wrong hiring them, because Reddit will not have reasonably known at the point of hiring. Hiring people for routine positions involves a CV, interview, references, evidence of qualifications, declarations of criminal convictions, etc.: not sifting through the internet hoping to hit paydirt. That sort of vetting is not what companies tend to do, or at least not unless appointing to a level of sufficient seniority.
And honestly, I don't think many of us would like the idea of companies regularly subjecting their employees (including ourselves) to that sort of invasive vetting either.
I've never been a fan of this idea that companies are responsible for their employees outside of their work. Obviously this is an extreme case involving a pedophile so I dunno my feelings are mixed here.
So I can't see the links and don't know anything more about this than the quote in the OP states. This is a person who was previously convicted, has served their sentence, has now rejoined the workforce, and we are now upset that a company has hired this person? Is there more to it than that? Has he been hired for a position that involves interaction with minors? Because, if not, I'm not really sure what the controversy is, isn't that how the justice system is supposed to work? This person served their time and has been deemed rehabilitated by the state and thus needs to find employment to support themselves. Or should ex-cons be perpetually supported by the state and never be required to work again once they leave prison? Because that doesn't make any sense. Either kill them, keep them in prison for their entire life, or people need to accept that ex-cons are going to be working among them.
I am so glad I never joined Reddit. They can never seem to get their shit together and either don't do research or cover up a fatal mistake that leads to bigger problems.
It depends what they do. Costco would suffer minimal (if any) legal blowback for hiring an ex-con. Their staff may not like them but thatās a whole other issue. But - as a rather extreme but demonstrative example - Lockheed Martin could never touch the same person with a fifty foot pole because regardless of qualifications this person would represent a serious security risk.
Last edited:
No, the individual in question hasn't been found guilty of any crime: a relative of hers was, and she subsequently hired that relative as an election officer. Then, later on, her partner was found to have written some pornographic fiction online involving children.
The position that the protesting Reddit mods took wasn't that she herself did anything, but that she allegedly covered for people who did. And certainly it looks... shady that two separate instances cropped up connected to the same person.
But also, I'm very well aware that we don't know very much about all this. It's also possible that this has all been fed through the online rumour-mill, or that speculation/ interpretation is being taken as fact. I can believe, for instance, that the relative in question may have manipulated his family into silence. Perpetrators do that with their families sometimes.
We can all agree that Reddit colossally shit the bed, though.
Last edited:
Your quote is messed up. Should have been attributed to me and not Piscian.
What is an 'election officer' as it relates to Reddit?