Let's say she sucked at her job. Let the org fire her. These actions were the result of thought that they needed to heed public opinion.
As if officers need to walk on eggshells. What should matter ate results rather than dictated by the winds of public opinion.
I wish the board, management, etc. in these situations would who resolve and say, no, sorry, this is our choice, we stand by it. But no, we see them capitulate to public opinion.
Sometimes that opinion does coincide with"the right thing to do" but let the company execute the right thing. Don't let the mob become your upper management.
Yes, the board could have ignored users' opinions. But users weren't just complaining about Ms. Pao. They were complaining about the policy changes ("We ban behavior, not ideas.") that she was championing. If those policy changes continue under new management, I suspect that many Reddit users will vote with their "feet". To Voat or whatever. And given that Reddit sells users' eyeballs, that will reduce revenues.
There is a difference between doing what your users tell you to do, and listening to them.
> “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” -H. Ford
Users present solutions to their problems, when you listen you discover what their problem actually is. In the above case, faster more reliable transportation.
edit: Jobs was a cofounder of what is(or close to) the most profitable company in the world. He saved the company from bankruptcy and is arguably the best quality control engineer ever. Rules always have exceptions but thinking you are the exception often helps to prove the rule.
It's almost like she just sucked at her job and the public backlash and getting fired were both predictable consequences of that fact.