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".
Sure, but companies play very free and loose with the definition of "profitable". Amazon and youtube have both also been said to be unprofitable, but both blatantly make a lot more than they spend. They just do shit like reinvest all profits into expanding the business or paying the board.
And capitalism, as it is now, is set up to demand increasingly more profits each year unto infinity - a flat, steady income for the company and its employees and board members is still seen as a failure. A company can be profitable (as in, made way more money than it spent), and they'll still say it's floundering if it didn't make more profits than the previous year.
Companies are also currently raising prices and claiming they have to because of supply chain problems and inflation, while also making record profits.