[bduerst]

You built a straw man and said, "Are you suggesting this straw man?" You've done this with several comments now.

It's entirely up to a private website to run itself in any manner it deems fit, and if you can't find "intellectual clarity" when the rules are posted then why do you even comment?

[tptacek]

No, I surmise that you think I'm attacking a straw man because you saw the words "child pornography" and assumed (incorrectly but reasonably, given the hyperbole in this particular controversy) that I was equating creepshots and jailbait with child pornography.

I was in fact not doing that. I was suggesting that the principle on which your argument rested --- that we should tolerate all content in order to defend free expression --- was probably counterfeit. I was saying that you did have a problem with child pornography, not that you accept it and were thus a suspect participant in this conversation.

[danielweber]

If you say "reddit can run itself any way it wants," that's true, but it doesn't lend itself to useful conversation. 'tptacek is also free to comment on what he sees as inconsistent moderation rules on HN (as long as HN tolerates it, etc etc turtles all the way).

[bduerst]

Finally - some discussion. The moderation on reddit, outside of the rules, is run by volunteers. The rules set by admin are clear so why does tptacek have an issue with clarity?

[tptacek]

The rules appear to be "free expression above all else until someone makes an argument against some particular form of free speech that a small group of Reddit moderators find compelling". I do not think that is a clear standard.

[bduerst]

>some particular form of free speech

Where in the rules do you see this?

[tptacek]

"No doxxing".