While he shouldn't have done it, the fact that he did isn't really the issue for me. The fact that he was able to is a much bigger deal. How is it that he was

While he shouldn't have done it, the fact that he did isn't really the issue for me. The fact that he was able to is a much bigger deal. How is it that he was able to do this? Is it a standard ability granted to all admins? As a CEO, I wouldn't expect that editing user content is a part of his job, or that he would have access to the database to edit it directly, so I have to assume it is a standard permission. The ability to delete posts I can understand - that's a normal administrative activity, and it's pretty harmless. Editing posts to make it appear as if a user said something they didn't is potentially incredibly harmful, especially since we have no idea how such a change is audited. We live in an age where governments can and do routinely monitor online activity. Knowing that anything you post on Reddit could be edited without your knowledge or consent, and that you would appear to be responsible for that content, is an incredibly dangerous situation. Even if the change is logged as having been made by an admin, that only helps you if the authorities actually order Reddit to provide the logs. If they simply print out your post history as evidence against you, good luck convincing them that you weren't the author of that content. Yes, it's a far fetched scenario, but we know now that it's possible. That makes Reddit an unsafe community to participate in.