| > Not every decision has a moral component Fair, I overreached there. > reddit has made the single moral decision that they will permit (legal) free-speech except for doxing, of course. Except for hate speech. Except for spam. Except for gawker (whoops, no that was by accident). Except for... > reddit has made the single moral decision that they will permit (legal) free-speech and beyond that point they have chosen to be amoral 1) As I stated above, that falls apart when you look at it closely. Reddit indeed tries to minimally muck around with content, but it certainly does do so. 2) You can't substitute legality for morality and call it amorality; all you can do is align your morality with the law if you choose to do so. Imagine an alternate universe where the internet existed during Jim Crow, and Georgia law required it to have black and white websites. According to the "law supersedes morality" theory, they could morally segregate white and black users in Georgia. Obviously that's a ludicrous scenario for many reasons, but I think Jim Crow laws are an excellent illustration of the divergence of morality and legality. Choosing to follow the law is a moral decision, and you can't wish that away. |