And remember, because I feel this always needs to be said with such sums…
193 million isn’t enough for him, and 193 million plus whatever millions he made in years prior isn’t enough for him. He’s going public because he’s a broken, disturbed human being that looks at his unethical levels of wealth, enough for most of the other humans that live here to live 2 dozen extravagant lifetimes, and still demands mooooooaaaaaar.
Why isn’t this widely accepted as severe mental illness?! This is hoarding disorder.
These aren’t big ocean house sums. These are buying politicians sums, and they are only achievable through exploiting other human beings and selfishly pocketing most of the value of their labor.
Once you get to that level of wealth it becomes a mentally ill competition game. It’s no longer about the money or what you could or will do with the money, it’s trying to get yourself into higher tiers of even more abhorrent wealth accumulation.
“How did you get here? Business class?”
Laughs the people with private jets
“Where are you staying? A resort?”
Laughs the people with a house in every city
“Where will you go when we end the world? Not my bunker”
Laughs the people with bunkers
Is it possible to set a roof on private wealth? Everything above put into public funds? Give them a “you win at capitalism” trophy and let them into some other game to play.
I think the absence of cap also makes super rich people motivated to invest in new projects that could make them even richer. If they don’t have this motivation anymore, it may reduce this investment source, they’d just keep what they have and don’t see the point in doing more with their money. Would the state do that better from taxes money? Maybe
But that means they seek projects that must be profitable and that’s exactly why I want the bloated investment power off their hands and into public projects that value psyche and society in the long run. Profit seeking leads to sick companies like Apple etc. with stances like “the customer should not be able to repair their shit”.
I think better regulation of the market so it benefits the consumers, like what EU tries to do, is more realistic than imagining a state being able to sustainably handle marketable innovation. I don’t think a state would have come out with efficient web search, smartphones or gen AI for exemple.
Yes.
Enforced, adequately high progressive taxation could do that, in fact we had tax rates closer akin to that prior to Reagan, and at one point our highest tax rate was close to 90% as it should be so as to limit accruing enough wealth to warp our society unilaterally beyond their single vote with media and political bribery, but that died a long time ago in the name of “turning the bull loose.”
But then the greediest fucks among us bribed our leaders to get their way, to thunderous applause by idiot conservative peasants and many so called democrats, today’s neoliberals, and here we are, planet burning, terminal stage capitalism, good fucking times. But hey, as long as Bezos can have a second mega yacht to keep his first mega yacht company (he really does look it up) I guess it was all worth our impending collapse.
You know what people did when the highest tax rate was 90%? They made sure they’d still “max out” 25 years from now. They invested in their company reputation and their workers.
I can just picture every modern billionaire vomiting into their mouth at the thought.
Not only would I be willing to give them a trophy, give them a fucking parade, shout-out at the next SOTU, let them sign the original constitution or some shit, whatever the fuck these mentally ill people need to stop destroying society.
Hell keep a leaderboard of who “produced” the most wealth and let them compete with each other. The winner every year gets their name carved in a new " Stanley Cup of Captalism" (the hockey one, not the crazy white lady one). All of that shit would be infinitely cheaper than having billionaires around.
Why would anyone buy shares in a company that is not profitable, nor may never be profitable. Even they wrote that in the IPO. What would a buyer of shares be buying a share of?
You live in a world where people are buying NFTs, and you find THIS surprising?
Moderators get a feeling of power. I’ve never heard a reddit mod say they want money.
That honestly says way more about mods than it does about Reddit. Of course you’re not gonna pay for a task people are lining up to do for free, no matter how much they themselves make.
Numbers like this are always bonkers to me. Like, how have we allowed this to happen?
It’s a fucking social media site. I know surgeons who work 80-100 hour weeks and make 1.5M a year—and even that seems obscene to me. But they’re academic subspecialty surgeons who are quite literally saving lives daily by personally performing heart transplants. How the fuck do we think as a society that a smug ass CEO’s “effort” is worth 200x that?
Society is so backwards and fucked.
Greed should be punishable. If we can punish violence, we should be able to punish greed. They’re two sides of the same coin.
Most people are too invested and emotionally attached (not saying it is a bad thing) to rise up and do some actual damage, because they’d be throwing their lives out, so not really gaining anything in the end. We need some good ol revolution.
No wonder they’re such assholes.
I think he is seriously devaluing someone giving those mods Reddit Gold
But reddit hasn’t been profitable, right?
Ok, serious question: were the moderators offered share options, or are they hoping that the company would eventually compensate them? Or is this discussion blanketed by an NDA?
Yes, some of us got this email on Monday.
Pretty sure most old and/or active accounts received this regardless of being mods, though.
No, maybe in some cases, no.
No to all 3 questions afaik.
So what, give the CEO half and pay the rest to the mods? Like 1300 bucks per year without tax and fees. What would be left? 50 bucks per month? Reddit has like 75000 moderators. Some for huge Subreddits, some for small ones. Equal pay? Or what?
Someone has to organize all that paying, many are in different countries, different tax laws. In the end, there would be like 20 bucks per month for each. You then would also require extra heavy checks for moderation quality to ensure they are worth their pay. You’d need systems to prevent abuse. If there’s money involved, people become extra greedy. Just pay some of them? Only the ones working a few hours per day? Pay per moderating action? What?
Or you just do double pay for the CEO. Seems like a no-brainer.
…or you invest the money in actually making your platform decent and adding features mods have been asking for years. But then big number doesn’t go up so it’s a bad idea I guess.
I’m definitely going to short this stock
Reddit Users:
They could leave the platform, and watch it crumble and burn.
If I were a mod I’d just mod it poorly. Accept bribes from users to gaslight and ban their enemies. Disable posting restrictions, wait for the spam to come, and just ban a shipload of people in response, then make posting restrictions unreasonably high. Make any mention of the name Goldstein an automatically bannable offence. Change the font to white on white for a day. When users complain, change it to yellow on pink. Shit like that
I think some have been caught getting bribes years ago.
What are they gonna do, fire me from my volunteer job?
Mods? They won’t. Most are either Idealogues pushing an agenda for some reason or introvert shut-ins addicted to the tiny bit of power they have.
We all saw them flake out and fold back in July-August at the mere notion of getting replaced.
I am not even mod, never was, and even I got an email to pre-register for their IPO. For some reason. Deadline to pre-register is March 24th, if I recall.
Mods are paid in power and the ability to push their opinions. If there are people willing to do it for free then they dont need to pay anyone.
Mods are paid in power and the ability to push their opinions.
A not-insignificant number of them are paid in wages and the ability to push the opinions of their employers. Can’t find it, but there was some well-researched accounts of several of the bigger subs being moderated by think tank / party owned accounts, based on IP-tracking and associated account activity.
Most famously, there was the takeover of the /r/Libertarian server by right-wing agitators back in 2018.
That’s not even getting into the direct (and indirect) advertising that site admins manage on behalf of the company itself, which is functionally a form of moderation.
Most big subs have some kind of professional staff at this point, if for no other reason than inattentive or rebellious moderators have been purged by Reddit admin. You’re not going to find some weekend warrior at the top of /r/pics or /r/news or /r/politics.
r/Worldnews? More like r/WorldHasbara
Are you saying he’s doing an excellent job on maximizing output?
