I can see the value of having someone with the ability to edit posts (removing extreme TOS stuff - racism, hate speech etc). But that's probably not for the CEO and certainly shouldn't be used simply to "troll the trolls"

Also it's baffling to me that the CEO of reddit is a regular user and somehow isn't up in arms about how irritating it is to use the site.

I'm not sure that's right. If your website is saying I said something I didn't say then that's an issue. Sure, have the ability to remove or annotate posts that break the rules in some way but to leave a post up saying something other than what the poster wrote seems bad (and possibly even libellous) to me.

Yeah there's definitely better ways to go, but regardless the main thing is the CEO has no business being anywhere near this kind of functionality.

> (removing extreme TOS stuff - racism, hate speech etc)

Why would you edit these? Deletion seems far superior, do you want people to go around editing out the racism of peoples posts? Seems absurd.

> Deletion seems far superior, do you want people to go around editing out the racism of peoples posts?

The generous argument for would be it preserves any redeeming value in the offending comment. The practical answer is he wanted something to rail against.

Can't really see how my comments suggest I'm "rail[ing] against" something

> how my comments suggest I'm "rail[ing] against" something

Sorry, clarified. Spez wanted something to attack.

Ahhhh sure, no worries!

I'd personally hide or delete them. But I can see why someone might argue for this functionality, it's not totally absurd.

What's absurd is a CEO editing posts to troll people

How palpable would the irony be if he's an old.reddit.com guy?

Better than zero chance. He addressed it in the AMA thread last week.

> P.S. old.reddit.com isn’t going anywhere

Those that should go are the users really.