[morbius]

But Reddit wasn't attacking corporatocracy or actual censorship. They were just trying to defend their right to be dicks to other people through abusive and hateful subs.

The right to free speech is not the right to speech without consequence. And what obligation does reddit have to preserve "free speech" in the first place? They run the website and it is fully up to them what gets filtered through and what sticks. It's not beholden to the first amendment.

[sroerick]

> But Reddit wasn't attacking corporatocracy or actual censorship.

Are you sure? I frankly saw much more of this than the other. I, of course, have a bias, but I think people were focused on censorship.

And you're right. Reddit doesn't owe anyone free speech. But with all due respect, that's the product that they developed. Crowdsourced content aggregation is a useful service, but it's one that is entirely dependent on having "free speech".

If corporations or government can shape the dialogue on a website like reddit, it fundamentally undermines the purpose of having a service that aggregates upvotes.

Reddit can control and censor all they want. But it will take them from having a unique product and niche to being another viral editorial board in a sea of crappy viral editorial boards.

People have the right to free speech. People have the right to be offended by things. And people have a right to leave a service when it stops existing as it once did.