[Sebb767]

In this case, yes. For one, the original title has them. Secondly, as stated in the article, Reddit denies the allegations:

> [...] admin u/landoflobsters explains that it was not the company’s intention to remove any mention of Knight’s name, but that there had been “overzealous automaton” when it came to preventing doxxing and harassment. The admin explained that an internal error had led to the suspension of a moderator who had posted Knight’s name, and that the company had “communicated clearly” with the affected party as they resolved the situation.

A now fixed error would not count as censorship. He might be lying, but there's enough reasonable doubt to allow for quotes IMO.

On a side note, though, it's funny that the article choose to put quotes around “communicated clearly” as well.

[robbyking]

I moderate a reddit community with ~200k users, and if I didn't use strict filtering along with a slew of Automoderator rules I'd spend half of my day removing spam, shitposts, and submissions that break our posting rules. A few posts a day get caught by mistake, but it's a lot easier to free those posts than it is to remove the dozens of bad ones that would have made it through otherwise. I think it's at least plausible that the same type of thing happens at a site-wide level.

[fieryscribe]

The post was removed after a few hours, not immediately. It was also removed because Challenor was referenced at the bottom of the article, not because of anything in the Reddit post itself

[MauranKilom]

> It was also removed because Challenor was referenced at the bottom of the article, not because of anything in the Reddit post itself

I've seen that repeated a lot, but every time followed by a correction that said part of the article was quoted in the comment.

[legitster]

> the company had “communicated clearly” with the affected party as they resolved the situation

https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/mbbm2c/welcome_...

It sounds like things are still very much opaque.

[dannyw]

Reddit needs to fire their entire PR team and just start communicating directly and frankly. The community would be a lot less upset without all the PR speak.

[hinkley]

> the affected party

That's mismanagement that doesn't even see it's mismanagement.

A policy problem that affects a person in leadership affects everyone in the group. They should have communicated with the affected parties and it sounds like they left it to the moderator to sort everybody else out.

They chose... poorly.

[zelon88]

Of course they did. That's the reddit business model.

A handful of people who mostly delegate work to slave labor (volunteer moderators) and only take action themselves to monitor and maintain the slaves.

Reddit employees have no purpose other than to crack the whip at moderators.

[dragonwriter]

Volunteer moderators aren't slave labor. The essential evil of slavery is “involuntary” not “unpaid”.