[upwardbound]

Depriving any party of any portion of their free will & their right to voluntarily consent is still a con, even if it's for (ostensibly) their own benefit.

There's a reason that informed consent is required for medical procedures, even lifesaving ones.

    Informed consent is the process in which a health care provider educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention. The patient must be competent to make a voluntary decision about whether to undergo the procedure or intervention.  Informed consent is both an ethical and legal obligation of medical practitioners in the US and originates from the patient's right to direct what happens to their body.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430827/

I know that it's a stretch to apply medical ethics to business deals but I believe the principle of informed consent is still a moral requirement. An example of how this is the intent in many legal systems is the concept of a "meeting of the minds" being a mandatory part any legally valid contract. "Meeting of the minds" is similar to the idea of informed consent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds

[aimazon]

You're accepting that the "con" was a con. For the con to be a con (consensual or otherwise) we have to believe that Conde Nast were willing to give up their majority stake without knowing that it would lead to the company being worth billions. If they didn't think giving up their majority stake would benefit them, why did they do it? The entire premise of the con is that Conde Nast were simultaneously too stupid to realise that there was a path to success for reddit but also willing to give up their majority stake based on the need to hire some people?

[upwardbound]

> manufacture a series of otherwise-improbable leadership crises

This was a violation of Yishan’s fiduciary duty to Condé Nast. It’s illegal.

[aimazon]

You’re missing my point. I’m suggesting there was no con. The “manufacture[d] leadership crises” were not manufactured. Reddit was sold to Conde Nast, it struggled due to lack of investment, a plan was put forward to rescue it, Conde Nast consented to the plan. If Reddit was struggling due to underinvestment why would crises need to be manufactured? Everyone on Reddit back then recognised that it was a shit show due to underinvestment. Reddit continued to struggle for years after the “con” because it takes a long time to fix underlying issues, if the crises were manufactured, then a post-“con” reddit would have been wonderful and stable but it wasn’t.

Altman and co. benefit from reframing the history of reddit as a grand genius conspiracy.

[awdwad]

This is bordering on fraud no? SBF is in prison despite making good investments with his ill gotten funds. That does not make him less culpable. Sam Altman and his cadre are the distillation of everything wrong with the Valley. It would seem you need to be spineless to work with these people.

[JSDevOps]

> making good investments

Like what?

[longdustytrail]

Anthropic