Key point of the article: > Questions about how platforms like Twitter and Reddit deal with disruptive users and offensive content tend to be met with defensiv

Key point of the article: > Questions about how platforms like Twitter and Reddit deal with disruptive users and offensive content tend to be met with defensive language invoking free speech. > In the process of building private communities, these companies had put on the costumes of liberal democracies. They borrowed the language of rights to legitimize arbitrary rules, creating what the technology lawyer Kendra Albert calls ‘‘legal talismans.’’ > What better way to avoid liability and responsibility for how customers use your product? It was also good marketing. It’s easier to entrust increasingly large portions of your private and public life to an advertising and data-mining firm if you’re led to believe it’s something more. I've noticed this most distinctly with Reddit. Why haven't all the hate subreddits been banned? /r/physical_removal was exhorting for the deaths of thousands months prior to Charlottesville. The admins proclaim free speech, but under this thin excuse, lies their business model. Toxic users are extremely active. They have to be. Spewing vitriol, spreading hate, posting canards necessitate constant engagement. Looking at the tables of monthly metrics, who is more valuable? That one user with 10,000 internet points flaming other users every hour of the day, or the occasional commenter who writes longwinded but intellectually honest posts? I can tell you which one is far more numerous, and I can tell you which one Reddit raised millions on. Ultimately, I would argue that this pretense is is designed to morally justify the power these platforms wield over their users. To do any less, especially for an overly-dominant player, sets the stage for regulatory action, backed by popular demand. edit: removed slight political slant.