> As it is, it looks like she's trying to enforce Europe's definition of free speech, which limits hate speech You're still confusing the issue. Are you doing

> As it is, it looks like she's trying to enforce Europe's definition of free speech, which limits hate speech You're still confusing the issue. Are you doing this deliberately or do you really not understand the difference between "we're censoring speech we don't like" versus "we're cracking down on people that are harassing other people"? > I don't think it's great lengths. And why? Well, because you want your userbase to trust you and increased transparency helps that. Ok, let me rephrase. Why preserve the content at all? The sub flagrantly violated the rules by harassing other people. Therefore it's banned. We all know what happens to a sub when it gets banned. I see no value whatsoever in trying to preserve the content of a sub like that. > Moderators say they have inefficient tools to tackle doxxing, and Reddit says moderators aren't doing a good enough job. Whose burden is that? The banning of FPH clearly demonstrated that admins felt it is the moderators' burden. The banning of FPH says absolutely nothing about whether the moderators' tools are sufficient to track doxxing. The issue was not that the moderators were incapable of doing their job with the tools provided. It's that the moderators refused to step in. The moderators of FPH and the other subs were willing participants in the harassment campaigns being waged by the subs. Hell, FPH put information about Imgur employees right in its sidebar as part of the harassment. And the only people that can do that are moderators.