tvbusyReddit CEO Triples Down, Insults Protesters, Whines About Not Making Enough Money From Reddit Users
Yes, Reddit is a big dataset and yes, Reddit deserves to make some money off that if other organisations are going to scrape that data, for AI or anything else.
That's what they should be blocking and monetizing. Not those few users using 3rd party apps. Those folks (posters, mods) are amongst the ones creating that data set for Reddit, free of charge.
They are right about needing to make money to continue as a successful business. But they are doing it the wrong way and alienating their key assets.
Which is why I'm here :)
Why does reddit deserve to make profit from content made by others? They are service provider - they are not entitled to the work of people who used their service.
Ok. I'm about to abandon an account that's 17.5 years old. I despise what reddit is proposing.
But, honestly, how do you propose they turn (some) profit so it could last forever? Losing money isn't a long-term recipe for success. I've got no problem with reddit seeking to profit. I've got a problem with their short notice and their refusal to let third party clients be part of the ecosystem they wish to create.
First I don't see why reddit has to be a for profit organisation in the first place, since that's kind of the rout of the problem. Users becoming a product that reddit is trying to sell to advertisers. At the same time if reddit would be respectful to users, creators and mods it would be a different story. But they are clearly not, they don't respect the people who are making reddit work - but feel entitled to the fruits of their labor. That just irks me on a deeply personal level.
My main problem is not even with the API decision but with the way the CEO communicated with the community.
COMPLETELY agree that reddit shouldn't have developed in a commercial direction, but rather as a non-profit. That would avoided so many problems. That said, even as a non-profit losing money is not tenable.
I also agree that how the CEO communicated is a big part of the problem.
Do we know they are losing money? Do we even know they are not making money? It is more likely that they are not making enough money to satisfy the stock holders and give big payouts to the principles.
Generally an organuzation does not need to make money to stay in business. They do however need a positive cash flow and assets need to exceed liabilities generally or at least by enough creditors will not force bankrupcy. So profit is entirely optional. However for a typical stockholder company the profit expectations are unlimited.
Well they've said they're "not profitable".
And after all that has happened, you'd take what they say at face value? I certainly would not. I take "not profitable" to mean not as profitable as they would like to be to support whatever valuation they are targeting. As far as I know I've not heard that their cash flow is negative. It is negative cash flow that puts companies out of business and is the serious thing.