[ALittleLight]

I just googled it and it seems like he changed messages that were insulting him to insult moderators of the subreddit. The parent's comment doesn't seem wrong to me, if that's true. He altered communications of reddit users to make it look like they were insulting reddit moderators, in such a way as to falsely attribute those insults to the original authors.

[wtallis]

You're still spinning it unfairly, by leaving out relevant information. It was a pranking attempt that fell flat, and was neither intended to nor successful in having the effect of surreptitiously turning T_D users against each other. The admin in question quickly admitted to the deed and explained his motives. Attributing other, conflicting motives without further justification is misleading at best.

[asdfsdafsdf]

No you're spinning it by saying "It was a pranking attempt that fell flat". Either way do you really think it's okay for a CEO to "prank" users by silently editing their posts then only admitting to it after being caught. Seems like the "prank" excuse is a spin.

If it was a prank he would have done it and admitted it without getting caught in-between.

Also, it has to be funny to be a prank, otherwise it's bullying, where was the punchline?

[s_y_n_t_a_x]

> You're still spinning it unfairly

> It was a pranking attempt that fell flat

You're spinning, not them.

Even assuming it was a "prank", it was meant to create discord, otherwise the CEO would have chose a different, funnier, more obvious edit.

Instead, he chose to make a subtle change and then only admitted it after getting caught.

[derision]

It wasn't just any admin, it was the CEO.

[DuskStar]

Imagine Mark Zuckerberg using FB admin rights to turn a "Donald Trump is the worst president of our generation" post by Biden into "Bernie Sanders would be the worst president of our generation".

Would characterizing that as "an attempt to turn democrats against each other" be fair?