Connect with us

Published

on

Budrul Chukrut | Lightrocket | Getty Images

At midnight on Tuesday, the moderators of the Reddit community r/Gaming decided to go dark.

Dac Croach, who goes by username Dacvak, and the subreddit’s other leaders hit the private button, initiating a 48-hour shutdown for the group’s more than 37 million members, along with anyone else who tried to access the community.

They were joining a large-scale protest against Reddit, which was about to implement a business change that would dramatically increase the price for third-party developers to use the company’s application programming interface, or API. In the preceding days, the r/Gaming moderators had run a poll indicating that users would support a shutdown. They discussed the results on Slack, and then went offline.

The widespread protests of one of the internet’s most-trafficked sites started early this week and quickly expanded to more than 8,000 subreddits, including the wildly popular r/Funny, with over 40 million members, along with r/Music and r/Science, each boasting over 30 million users.

Croach and his peers weren’t only standing in solidarity with Reddit’s outside developers. They were also worried that the tools they use on a daily basis to run their groups may no longer be available if the creators of those services decide they can’t afford Reddit’s new pricing structure. Reddit’s third-party apps are popular with moderators, who use them to organize their subreddits, block spam accounts, flag unsafe posts, find patterns of harassment and abuse and communicate with their members on the go.

Other apps widely used by Reddit members help with browsing the site and with assisting disabled users, who can find services for improved accessibility.

Croach told CNBC that, unlike Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet’s YouTube, Reddit counts on independent developers, rather than employees, to provide essential services that make the platform operable for moderators and users.

“Reddit not only has all of its content generated by users, but all of its moderation is done by volunteers,” Croach said. “We’re talking hundreds of thousands of volunteers putting in hours a day to keep the site safe, entertaining and enjoyable for community members. And it’s tough to see that those people, when their voices are loud like this, are being ostensibly ignored.” 

That sentiment is shared across much of the Reddit universe, based on CNBC’s interviews with nearly a dozen moderators, some of whom oversee the biggest communities on the site.

The controversy highlights the increasingly fraught relationship between Reddit’s leadership team, which has been marching towards an IPO, and its many outside supporters, who have helped the company maintain over 100,000 active communities that attract over 500 million monthly global visitors.

Thousands of Reddit pages go dark in protest over company's new third-party app policy

If unresolved, the impact of a prolonged blackout could have ripple effects across the internet.

Reddit is the sixth-most-visited website in the U.S., according to data from analytics firm Semrush – behind Google, Google-owned YouTube, and Facebook, but ahead of Amazon, Twitter and Yahoo. Its more than 100,000 active subreddits, on topics from gardening to comic books, provide mounds of content catalogued by Google and other search engines.

Reddit previously said the coming price increase for access to its API was necessary because so much of its data is being used to train artificial intelligence models being developed by tech giants like Microsoft and Google.

In addition to giving it compensation for using its trove of data, Reddit said the updated pricing model is “to ensure developers have the tools and information they need to continue to use Reddit safely, protect our users’ privacy and security, and adhere to local regulations.” The company added in a later post that it “needs to be a self-sustaining business and to do that, we can no longer subsidize commercial entities that require large-scale data use from our API.”

Christian Selig, who runs a popular third-party browsing app called Apollo, found out about the pricing change on May 31, when a Reddit representative called him.

On the call, Selig figured out that he would owe Reddit about $20 million a year. Selig wrote in a post that Reddit is asking developers to pay $12,000 for every 50 million requests. He had 30 days to prepare for the changes or shut down altogether. He determined that he couldn’t afford to keep Apollo alive.

Selig announced he would shut down his app on June 30, the day before the changes were set to take effect. He emailed a Reddit representative and CEO Steve Huffman, outlining “small concessions that could be made that I think could make Apollo survive this, specifically around the timelines,” Selig told CNBC. 

A Reddit spokesperson pointed CNBC to a recent blog post outlining the company’s policies around its API and referenced Huffman’s comments during a recent Reddit Ask Me Anything post.

“We respect when you and your communities take action to highlight the things you need, including, at times, going private,” Huffman said. “We are all responsible for ensuring Reddit provides an open accessible place for people to find community and belonging.”

Steve Huffman, CEO of Reddit, delivers remarks on ‘Redesigning Reddit’ during the Web Summit in Lisbon, Portugal, Nov. 8, 2017.

Horacio Villalobos | Corbis | Getty Images

With the Reddit moderator community in an uproar, Huffman reportedly sent a memo to employees on Monday, telling them that, “like all blowups on Reddit, this one will pass.” He predicted that most subreddits would be back online by Wednesday.

The blackout continued through the week. Huffman told NBC News on Thursday that he wants the protests to end soon, but downplayed the significance of their impact on the company, saying that roughly 80% of Reddit’s top 5,000 communities are back open.

Huffman also said he’s looking to change Reddit’s moderator policy at an unspecified time so that users would be able to more easily vote out moderators if they disagreed with their decisions. A Reddit spokesperson said that Huffman was only outlining a hypothetical moderator proposal.

On Friday, the company posted a message in r/ModCodeofConduct, a community of Reddit moderators, suggesting that if subreddits did not agree to lift the blackout, the company would work to find new moderators.

“We are also aware that some members of your mid team have expressed that they want to close your community indefinitely,” the post said, adding, “If there are mods here who are willing to work towards reopening this community, we are willing to work with you to process a Top Mod Removal request or reorder the mod team to achieve this goal if mods higher up the list are hindering reopening.”

While the initial protest was planned for just 48 hours, on Tuesday thousands of subreddits decided to extend their blackouts indefinitely. 

“No one enjoys this,” Croach said. “No one wants to black out. No one revels in this. No one is happy about this. We’re doing this because… we love everything about Reddit, and we genuinely feel like not only are these decisions potentially detrimental for the future of the site, but they’re also just absolutely unfair to a lot of the people – including the third party developers – who volunteered their time for the site over the years… More than anything, we want a positive, peaceful outcome as quickly as possible, so things can just return to normal.” 

The ripple effects

Among the major U.S. internet companies, Reddit is unusual in that it’s still private. The 18-year-old company first disclosed plans for an IPO through a confidential filing in late 2021. That was right when the extended bull market was coming to an end and just before Wall Street lost all interest in public listings from cash-burning tech companies. It’s not clear at the moment when an IPO could happen.

Huffman has “got a lot of decisions to make as he’s trying to move the company public,” said David DeWald, a community manager for the telecommunications company Ciena and a moderator of the r/Arcade1up subreddit who goes by the username HistorianCM. He said Reddit management likely made the decision to raise the price of its API out of financial necessity.

As a private company, Reddit doesn’t have to disclose its financials or provide revenue and profit projections. Reddit is an ad-supported business and, in the limited information it’s provided to the public, the company said in mid-2021 that quarterly ad revenue hit $100 million for the first time. On Thursday, Huffman told NBC News that the still-unprofitable company’s annual revenue is less than $1 billion.

For many news publishers, corporate websites and image-sharing services, Reddit is a major driver of traffic because its users share so much content with one another.

Shane McCarthy, chief marketing officer of enterprise software vendor Sandboxx, said many CMOs are surprised with how much referral traffic their website can get when one of their products is discussed in a particular Reddit community. Those sites could see a sudden decrease in traffic because of the blackout, McCarthy said, ultimately hurting their search rankings and driving up marketing costs. There are rumblings that it’s already happening.

The bigger problem for Reddit, according to McCarthy, is that the latest developments may deter new users from signing up, making it a less attractive place for advertisers to run campaigns. And if users delete content or archives in an act of protest, as one Reddit moderator told CNBC some are considering, “there’s nothing there anymore,” he said.

Croach and other subreddit moderators said tensions have long existed between Reddit management and the company’s vast network of volunteer contributors. The API charges represent the final straw, as they know the new pricing model doesn’t work for some app developers who built tools that they use every day.

“You have a lot of people, both professionals and general community members, who are running the numbers on this,” Croach said.  “A lot of people are kind of getting the same result, which is that the API pricing structure seems to be intentionally unsustainable for these smaller third-party developers.”

A Reddit user who goes by Meepster23 echoed Croach’s views. Meepster23 is a senior moderator of the r/Videos subreddit, which has more than 20 million members. He said that despite Reddit’s claim that the changes are about recouping costs, “their pricing seems to be based on revenue, not on cost at all.” 

Following the protests in real time

With their communities shut down, many moderators have turned to a subreddit and Discord group called ModCoord to express their frustrations and figure out next steps. ModCoord is made up of moderators of leading subreddits and has served as a way to help organize the community and disseminate information.

Although ModCoord has been used for past Reddit protests, it’s “not something that the moderators pull out lightly,” said a Reddit user named Omar, who helps run the ModCoord subreddit and Discord community, in an interview. Like several moderators who spoke to CNBC, the person asked not to be credited with their full name for fear of online harassment. The community, “isn’t under some delusion that we want the API to be free,” Omar said, adding that the priority is to make access affordable.

Reddark, a website that shows in real time which subreddits have gone private or read only, grew out of a community effort to chart the protests’ impact, and now attracts thousands of people visiting the site to watch the actions unfold, the creators told CNBC.

Reddark’s director, known online as Tanza, called Reddit’s API changes “ridiculous,” and said many disabled users rely on third-party apps for enhanced accessibility features.

A moderator of r/Unexpected, a subreddit with more than 10 million members, said its community was “dependent on third-party apps,” adding that moderating communities from mobile devices could be nearly impossible after the changes.

Jacqueline Sheeran, known as “MCHammerCurls,” is the head moderator of r/Fitness, which has more than 10 million members. She said volunteer moderators are reliant on third-party apps for all sorts of safety features so they can flag key words, phrases and expressions.

“There are legitimate health concerns, eating disorders, injuries,” she said. “[It’s about] trying to make sure that people are staying safe and healthy in their activities while also not being inundated by bots or spam accounts.”

Reddit co-founder on SVB fallout: Social media was the home for this contagion

Although Reddit has promised that its API pricing change wouldn’t affect third-party non-commercial accessibility apps or certain moderation tools, many Reddit moderators said that they are hesitant to trust the company. The moderators claim that Reddit has made promises in the past, such as providing them with high-quality internal moderation tools. However, they say Reddit’s home-built software wasn’t as good as outside services.

Leading up to the protests, Dr. Sarah Gilbert, a moderator for the r/AskHistorian subreddit, said she was “kind of hopeful” that Reddit leadership would distinguish the company as one that takes into account the concerns of volunteers in making business decisions.

“That would be such a powerful model for Reddit to take on and show,” said Gilbert, who studies online communities as part of her work as a postdoctoral associate at Cornell University and research manager at the school’s Citizens and Technology Lab. “It would have been a good thing for the social internet that we have for people to feel listened to and comfortable, but I don’t know if the turning point is going to come too late or what’s going to happen.”

Gilbert added that Huffman’s recent comments about instituting possible policy changes that would let Reddit users more easily remove moderators are “highly concerning for a number of reasons.”

She said that while on the surface, Huffman’s proposed policy changes “seem like it would work well,” it’s often that “voting alone can have some disastrous effects.”

“So, there’s a real risk that mods are going to get voted out, simply for doing the work of moderation,” she said. In the short term, this means mods may be less likely to do important moderation work that protects their communities but may be unpopular, which will have a downstream effect of more disinformation, more hate, more spam, more harassment and more abuse on Reddit.”

Reddit user RamsesThePigeon, who moderates multiple subreddits, including r/funny and r/nottheonion, said the company appears to be “standing firm” in its belief that the price hike was the right call.

But the conflict isn’t helpful for either side, and everyone’s time would be better spent “working toward the solution rather than against each other,” he said.

“I feel like a lot of people don’t take the time to consider the other side, whether that’s Reddit not considering its moderators and contributors, or the moderators and contributors not considering Reddit,” RamsesThePigeon said.

Regardless of the outcome, several moderators said that there’s been a loss of trust that will be hard to repair.

“I’m not certain that there would have been a completely perfect way to handle any of this,” RamsesThePigeon said. “No matter what, there is going to be animosity on both sides, and that’s just humanity for you.”

WATCH: The Reddit Revolt

Thousands of Reddit pages go dark in protest over company's new third-party app policy

Continue Reading

Technology

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Published

on

By

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX. 

Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.

Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit. 

“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.

To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.

Continue Reading

Technology

Why X’s new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk’s platform

Published

on

By

Why X's new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk's platform

Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.

Carlos Barria | Reuters

X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform. 

The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much. 

The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms. 

“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.

“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”

It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.

Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively. 

X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.

Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.

Artificial intelligence training

X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.

“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.

Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually. 

X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.

“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.

Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different. 

The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center. 

Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.

Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training. 

“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.

Liquidated damages

Bluesky CEO: Our platform is 'radically different' from anything else in social media

Continue Reading

Technology

The Pentagon’s battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

Published

on

By

The Pentagon's battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”

The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.

“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.

The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.

Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.

Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.

Concern with Congress and a changing White House

The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.

As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.

Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.

Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.

Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military

John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.

Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.

In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.

Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.

Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.

Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.

Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.

“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.

He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.

Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending