Of course, if Reddit owners/investors feel they need to fully submit to requirements of their advertisers, there is little they can do, and should just max profit and see if they can survive with a lot less "love" from their users.
Of course, if Reddit owners/investors feel they need to fully submit to requirements of their advertisers, there is little they can do, and should just max profit and see if they can survive with a lot less "love" from their users.
I am looking at social media as a form of reinforcement learning, especially the exploration phase; by censoring it the exploration phase is significantly weakened, leading to worse results in the end. So maybe evolutionary argument would be to allow all kinds of crazy ideas (with some requiring a bit more work to read), and let people themselves to decide which ones would be used in exploitation phase? In the past when a single stupid idea was forced upon everyone by authority (e.g. nazis), people didn't have any means to counter it. With open discussion spaces some people might find excellent counterexamples immediately, clearing the issue for millions right away why a certain idea is a really bad one.
This would allow showing advertisers a checkbox when they post an ad that asks whether they are okay with showing their ad on a dirty sub.
Pitch it to advertisers as you'll reach more people for the same cost, but your content may be shown by user posts that some may consider offensive.
But for subreddits that break sitewide rules (doxxing, inciting violence, etc) they just ban the subreddit outright instead of quarantining it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3fx2au/conte...
Or maybe the slope ends with nazis. Just a thought. 4chan will always exist as the bastion for your juvenile ideas of "free speech" (and all of the baggage that comes with it).