[xnemdncn]

>Who cares? Reddit is a private company, they can set their own standards for moderation.

Except it's not that simple. There's a substantial amount of judicial precedent that you can't refuse service to customers just because you disagree with their ideology or background, otherwise it would be okay to refuse service to supporters of gay marriage for example.

It's appalling that you would even suggest that.

[psychometry]

There is literally no "judicial precedent" for a website owner being disallowed from moderating user-submitted content. What are you talking about?

[Alex3917]

There actually are lots of safe harbor protections for common carriers. Lack of editorial oversight is why sites like YouTube can qualify for these protections, but sites like Gawker wouldn't be able to. (Even though they ultimately got shut down for ignoring a court order or whatever.)

[ceejayoz]

YouTube still takes down videos, comments, channels, etc., and restricts others by age/country/etc.

[Bartweiss]

Sure, but that's within safe harbor rules. If they went and moderated content and comments in a non-reactive way, say by banning commenters whose opinions they found incorrect, that would be legal but could jeopardize their safe harbor status.

[ebrenes]

YouTube completely censors material, here's a list of the actions they've undertaken: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_YouTube

And as it states there, they also have censorship based on their terms of service, where they prohibit the posting of videos which violate copyrights or depict pornography, illegal acts, gratuitous violence, or hate speech.

[vertex-four]

Banning hate speech is, broadly, not equivalent to refusing to make a cake or give someone a room in a hotel. It's appalling that you'd even suggest that.

[Declanomous]

Your poor understanding of the law is appalling.

Reddit isn't refusing to service people because of their ideology or background, they are limiting certain kinds of speech. A private organization is entirely allowed to limit certain kinds of speech.

[jeremysmyth]

...judicial precedent that you can't refuse service to customers just because you disagree with their ideology or background, otherwise it would be okay to refuse service to supporters of gay marriage for example

Way overbroad interpretation. The Civil Rights Act prohibits refusal of some kinds of service based on race, color, religion or national origin, and it's pretty much the only national law (in the US) that's relevant here (I'm not counting the 14th amendment or more specific laws e.g. for disabilities).

Notably, there's no federal law protecting supporters of gay marriage. They're state-specific laws, and not at all universal.

[ceejayoz]

> There's a substantial amount of judicial precedent that you can't refuse service to customers just because you disagree with their ideology or background, otherwise it would be okay to refuse service to supporters of gay marriage for example.

Ideology isn't a protected class. Sexual orientation is, at least in some states.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

[danielahn]

Hating liberals isn't a protected class.

Regardless, you are not refusing anyone service - you are not banning people from your platform, you are designating your platform as something not be used for certain purposes.

[d_e_solomon]

Would you cite the judicial precedent that you're relying on? Heart of Atlanta was based on the commerce cause and the civil rights act. I can't think of anything else that would apply.

[kreneskyp]

It's not discrimination to enforce site wide rules against harassment, racism, and brigading (coordinated upvoting). Just because only a few communities are breaking the rules doesn't make it discrimination. Racists and bigots aren't a protected class.