1 upvotes, 0 direct replies (showing 0)
Website admins have to be pragmatic. You can hold to a general principle of a free forum, but when the global media is breathing down your neck and you have threatened litigation that would bankrupt the site, you have to make tough decisions. In this instance, Reddit's legal team, whoever they may be, must have warned them that doom is imminent if they try to take a stand on this issue. Moreover, legal presumably warned them that that putting vague moralistic language in admin posts will be helpful should this matter end up in front of a jury. They could simultaneously wave the free-discussion banner and still look sympathetic. Indeed, this sort of response would help their position--see, we try to keep as free a form as possible, and whenever we step in to uphold the law, our users revolt. It's not us, it's just our users. We're good people.
It looks good to waive the hypocrisy flag, but are you going to create a replacement site if Reddit goes bankrupt defending dozens of high-dollar lawsuits? Don't you prefer Reddit's continued existence? Are you offering to personally indemnify Reddit for all possible damages if they keep these subs active? If you're a billionaire willing to put your own assets on the line, the admins might change their tune. Until then, they are being understandably (in my judgment) careful.
There's nothing here!