237 upvotes, 8 direct replies (showing 8)
"We remove what we're required to remove by law" is CYA-speech meaning "we'll do the bare minimum to make sure we don't get sued or arrested." Clearly reddit has a ton of other subreddits that host very illegal content, and their continual survival means that the admins don't think it's worth their time to actively look for these things unless there's a hint of trouble. They could just be honest and say "we don't have the manpower to monitor everything", but they clearly went the moral rationalization route about free speech and self-governance.
Comment by I_SkipLegDay at 07/09/2014 at 11:38 UTC
8 upvotes, 1 direct replies
See this is what I don't understand. Yes, they don't have the manpower to monitor everything, and you make that sound like it is a bad thing they have to apologize for! It's crazy to think that you can control everything and you are bordering on Orwellian government if you want to. They clearly stated they don't want to and went 'the moral rationalization route about free speech and self-governance' because that *is* the way they operate. They don't interfere with subs unless it is breaking the law or their own rules and it is brought up to them (They are not going to know what happens on millions of subs), its up to the users to decide what content is in reddit.
Comment by phunkydroid at 07/09/2014 at 13:46 UTC
6 upvotes, 1 direct replies
"We remove what we're required to remove by law" is CYA-speech meaning "we'll do the bare minimum to make sure we don't get sued or arrested."
But isn't that what we all want? The bare minimum of moderation?
Comment by Daishiman at 07/09/2014 at 09:41 UTC
22 upvotes, 1 direct replies
It's *obvious* from the announcement that they don't have the manpower and will. And they're right; who else would do it differently?
Comment by JackStargazer at 07/09/2014 at 17:11 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
What they actually mean is "As long as there is no record of us being aware of what is happening in X subreddit, it is less likely that we will be held legally liable for it. However if we remove it and trigger a Streisand effect, it will be posted such that we might not be able to keep up with it, and that might draw attention which gets us sued and makes us liable."
Comment by runnerrun2 at 07/09/2014 at 15:39 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I don't get why everyone is complaining so much though. It's exactly this sluggish system that everyone's now complaining about that has made reddit in my opinion be one the most freedom of speech respecting places anywhere.
Or is everyone that understands this just being silent and letting a bunch of the weirdly angry people vent? I'm not sure tbh.
Comment by [deleted] at 07/09/2014 at 10:54 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Yeah, it's an internet company's version of "built to code".
Comment by cardevitoraphicticia at 07/09/2014 at 12:53 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
No, the irony is that they are not subject to the DMCA since they don't host any of the content (aside from the thumbnails which they should disable). They are really just terrified of lawyers.
Comment by stealth210 at 07/09/2014 at 13:19 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Yeah well I don't want them to police morality here. Not that they've not already done that multiple occasions. Don't like something? Don't go there.