[erode]

I'm a moderator of a couple subreddits, and I don't see a problem with how Reddit administrators reacted to the situation. Perhaps I am the minority but I believe that Reddit's hands-off approach is the only reason the community thrives.

[raganwald]

I tried to be explicit in saying that I am not speaking to moderators about this. But Reddit has closed some of the subreddits, such as those that allegedly (I have never seen them) exploited underage persons. How about a cheque to charity for the approximate revenue they generated? It's a simple gesture.

[pbreit]

Can anyone confirm that more than a negligible sum was earned on such subreddits?

Part of my problem with the post is the insinuation that reddit is a gross money hungry corporation when the reality seems quite different.

[raganwald]

A token cheque to charity would satisfy me. I'm available for a photo op with the CEO where he shakes my hand and presents Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children with a cheque in the amount of $53.28 for all of the jailbait and creepshots ad revenue.

"We don't want the money, no matter how insignificant" would be a fine statement to make :-)

[rz2k]

The FCC has a policy whereby they absolutely refuse to approve content before it airs, even if networks explicitly ask. This is not a legal requirement, since the FCC levies fines for content that does not meet "community standards", it is deference to the fundamental principles of free speech whereby they would have a de facto pre-approval board.

Both this post and the Gawker post bizarrely talk about free speech as though it is an excuse for bad behavior. Free speech is considered a social good in its own right. Furthermore, in the writings of the authors of the US Constitution, and in numerous Supreme Court decisions, they do not only talk about government being prohibited from silencing people, they talk about policies that are implicitly dangerous by virtue of cooling the public debate.

Defending the principles of free speech is a difficult challenge when it comes to defending unpleasant and despicable groups. I don't find it credible or reasonable to claim that Reddit protected violentacres because it made them money, when it so clearly tarnishes their brand, and makes it more difficult for people to forward links, or otherwise talk about why they enjoy the site.

The economics may be counter intuitive (much in the same way that Lance Armstrong hurts the Nike brand now as much as he may have ever benefited it), but Reddit is more responsive to the criticism of despised groups because of its commercial interests. Take a nonprofit, community access television channel like Manhattan Neighborhood Network—I swear that I saw a show on that channel that had to be entirely about some creeper who was filming women walking by his apartment window on the way to work.

This post, and others, are based on the presumption that caring about the principles of free speech, and that recognizing that often ugly but lively debate is important to a dynamic society, is the same as wanting to see depraved and perverse content. Do they think the ACLU secretly sympathetic to neo-nazi causes, too?

I find it especially troubling when it comes from journalists make the same presumption, and then clarify that they are implicitly more trustworthy (even if they've ever knocked on the door to someone's home with a camera crew) than someone misbehaving on a public site, or that that is even relevant, as though there are different classes of people when it comes to how much of a voice you are allowed.

[watty]

"Hands-off" approach is not censoring every bad article on Violentacrez. Hands off is letting users determine what goes to the front page.

[SquareWheel]

The article was censored because it broke the cardinal rule of Reddit: You don't post people's personal information. That restriction was also immediately rescinded, a poor choice if you ask me.