Two IMO on-point excerpts of the article:
The highest-ranked replies are very critical of the post. “What good is our feedback when reddit seems perfectly happy to ignore all of it?” wrote one user. “What’s the point?” Another pointed out that Huffman called mods “landed gentry.” “Show, don’t tell,” wrote another user — to which the admin replied, “Agreed.”
“A beginning of what?” replied one user. “This solves nothing, and just wastes everybody’s time.”
Reddit’s administration is sounding more and more like an abusive SO trying to gaslight you into staying in the relationship. “Baby I’ll listen to you, I swear.”
I agree and I’m even a bit sympathetic - not to their leadership, who can sleep in the bed they made, but to the idea of the site. I just think they could have taken a few of those millions and used it to figure out something other than “We can increase revenue by eliminating access and making the experience worse for users that remain unless they pay us monthly.”
The heavy-handedness of the policy combined with the short timeline and non-negotiable, let-them-eat-cake stance makes me feel like this was a shoot from the hip thing rather than something fully investigated via models with decision points and predictions. In short, very Elon/Trump.
I think the core problem is that Reddit’s leadership wanted it to be an SV unicorn, and they tried lots of ways to make money off the site (cryptocurrency, Reddit gold, an official app that I swear was designed to make you click on ads by mistake, etc.). But it as never going to be the kind of cash making machine, actual or potential, that they were looking for. Well, that and, once you start taking outside investments (especially from VCs), the goals of the organization necessarily change towards making an exit (IPO or acquisition).
I think this essay gets at a lot of the things about how the place worked and why the value was hard to convert into money. The feudalism frame is a little gimmicky, maybe, but does provide some perspective and a useful analogy.