[MBCook]

No, I think they're dead on. They're allowed to fire people even if the community likes them.

But they did fail to communicate. They failed to communicate it was going to happen (no public transition). They failed to communicate it DID happen (people found out via side-channels), they failed to communicate a plan to keep things going smoothly (seems they didn't have one, which is amazing).

This applies to other incidents as well. They failed to clearly communicate the rules when they banned a few subreddits a few months ago. There are TONS of subs that are in clear violations of various rules but nothing happens to them and no one has every clearly explained why. Just "We're doing something" statements and guessing.

Quite a few of their recent makes were made SO MUCH WORSE by their lack of clear and timely communication. They would still be issues, but at least people could understand what was going on instead of rapid-rumor-mill-tea-leaf-interpreting.

[joeevans1000]

> No, I think they're dead on. They're allowed to fire people even if the community likes them.

Well, this is true, because as owners can do whatever they want. But Reddit's 'product' is community, plain and simple. So firing a loved admin is essentially taking away a bit of the reason for being on the site for many of the users. I think at the heart of the discontent is the tension between a grass roots community and the fact that there is ultimately a autocratic power over it all. In other words, the firing is a reminder to the users that they don't have control over their community.

This whole incident is just growing pain. Ultimately, they will form or join another community where they don't need a paid liaison to the AMA person. That community will have more self-governance. Additionally, that community may self-fund itself, and the destruction of the the community in the interest of monetization will be less easy. There is likely a lot of work that needs be done to enable that type of community, both technically and socially.

[uxcn]

Social sites really aren't easy to monetize without pissing off your users. MySpace imploded, Twitter still isn't profitable, Google backed off'ish from Plus, etc... I think Facebook is one of the few that seemed to successfully monetize a free social site.

I think the issue is that Pao (et al.) genuinely don't understand their community. That's the major source of the friction. Consequently, they can't figure out a realistic plan to build a healthy business around it. They seem to manage to piss a large percentage of their community off with every minor change they try to make. It's a bit sad because it's a huge community.

Possibly Aether (http://getaether.net/) might be something like what you have in mind.

[pbreit]

Of course they are allowed to. But if it's a bad decision or they handle it poorly, that is perfectly legitimate grounds for criticism.

[LeoNatan25]

So you are saying they should have spun it and presented the moderator in bad light? Yes, they are allowed to fire her, but so is the community allowed to vocally disagree with the decision and other terrible management that has gone far enough on Reddit.