If I understand the history correctly, Yishan (the former Reddit CEO) is talking about himself when he talks about a CEO in this story, and so Yishan's post is a brag, with a thin denial tacked on at the end. That's why I believe that Sam (Yishan's friend) is also engaging in thinly-veiled bragging about these events.
Here is Yishan's comment with his name spelled out for clarity instead of just saying "CEO":
In 2006, reddit was sold to Conde Nast. It was soon obvious to many that the sale had been premature, the site was unmanaged and under-resourced under the old-media giant who simply didn't understand it and could never realize its full potential, so the founders and their allies in Y-Combinator (where reddit had been born) hatched an audacious plan to re-extract reddit from the clutches of the 100-year-old media conglomerate.
Together with Sam Altman, they recruited a young up-and-coming technology manager [named Yishan Wong] with social media credentials. Alexis, who was on the interview panel for the new reddit CEO, would reject all other candidates except this one. The manager was to insist as a condition of taking the job that Conde Nast would have to give up significant ownership of the company, first to employees by justifying the need for equity to be able to hire top talent, bringing in Silicon Valley insiders to help run the company. After continuing to grow the company, [Yishan Wong] would then further dilute Conde Nast's ownership by raising money from a syndicate of Silicon Valley investors led by Sam Altman, now the President of Y-Combinator itself, who in the process would take a seat on the board.
Once this was done, [Yishan Wong] and his team would manufacture a series of otherwise-improbable leadership crises, forcing the new board to scramble to find a new CEO, allowing Altman to use his position on the board to advocate for the re-introduction of the old founders, installing them on the board and as CEO, thus returning the company to their control and relegating Conde Nast to a position as minority shareholder.
JUST KIDDING. There's no way that could happen.
-- yishanwong
My understanding of what Sam meant by "I could never have predicted the part where you resigned on the spot" was that he was conveying respect for Yishan essentially out-playing Sam at the end (the two of them are friends) by distancing himself (Yishan) from the situation and any potential liability in order to leave Sam "holding the bag" of possible liability.
What a great con! They conned Conde Nast into turning Conde Nast's (reported) $20 million investment into billions of dollars for Conde Nast. Sam Altman is a genius, Conde Nast are such fools!
Depriving any party of any portion of their free will & their right to voluntarily consent is still a con, even if it's for (ostensibly) their own benefit.
There's a reason that informed consent is required for medical procedures, even lifesaving ones.
Informed consent is the process in which a health care provider educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention. The patient must be competent to make a voluntary decision about whether to undergo the procedure or intervention. Informed consent is both an ethical and legal obligation of medical practitioners in the US and originates from the patient's right to direct what happens to their body.
I know that it's a stretch to apply medical ethics to business deals but I believe the principle of informed consent is still a moral requirement. An example of how this is the intent in many legal systems is the concept of a "meeting of the minds" being a mandatory part any legally valid contract. "Meeting of the minds" is similar to the idea of informed consent:
You're accepting that the "con" was a con. For the con to be a con (consensual or otherwise) we have to believe that Conde Nast were willing to give up their majority stake without knowing that it would lead to the company being worth billions. If they didn't think giving up their majority stake would benefit them, why did they do it? The entire premise of the con is that Conde Nast were simultaneously too stupid to realise that there was a path to success for reddit but also willing to give up their majority stake based on the need to hire some people?
You’re missing my point. I’m suggesting there was no con. The “manufacture[d] leadership crises” were not manufactured. Reddit was sold to Conde Nast, it struggled due to lack of investment, a plan was put forward to rescue it, Conde Nast consented to the plan. If Reddit was struggling due to underinvestment why would crises need to be manufactured? Everyone on Reddit back then recognised that it was a shit show due to underinvestment. Reddit continued to struggle for years after the “con” because it takes a long time to fix underlying issues, if the crises were manufactured, then a post-“con” reddit would have been wonderful and stable but it wasn’t.
Altman and co. benefit from reframing the history of reddit as a grand genius conspiracy.
This is bordering on fraud no? SBF is in prison despite making good investments with his ill gotten funds. That does not make him less culpable. Sam Altman and his cadre are the distillation of everything wrong with the Valley. It would seem you need to be spineless to work with these people.
That tracks. It could also explain why Ellen Pao was next in line, had a fairly brief stay before another "leadership crisis", and was subsequently replaced by Reddit cofounder Steve Huffman.
I don't quite understand the last paragraph. Why would Yishan the CEO manufacture crises and outed himself? Was he (at this point) an ally in Sam's con or victim?
My understanding of what Sam meant by "I could never have predicted the part where you resigned on the spot" was that he was conveying respect for Yishan essentially out-playing Sam at the end (the two of them are friends) by distancing himself (Yishan) from the situation and any potential liability in order to leave Sam "holding the bag" of possible liability.