These days, profit and social good are rarely aligned.
Or more generally, going back to the grandparent post here, this reads to me as a stunning indictment of Silicon Valley...
IMO the direction you're describing seems...reactive? I mean, sure, if you don't like racism and hate speech, work to get rid of them, but there's a lot more to social good than that.
Frankly I think Reddit should actively try and fragment itself a bit---give mods more power, let communities become more distinct. Maybe allow mods to add js, or let subreddits host SPA's, etc. Don't encourage subreddit enmity, but tolerate it.
Reddit has a lot of users, but they don't really do much except talk and provide ad impressions. This feels like a waste, considering they're on a compute platform.
How do you deal with balancing free speech and a healthy market place of ideas with stopping the spread of racism and hate speech.
How do you contribute to countering these ideas you don't like instead of causing them to just move to another platform and increase division of opinions as people stop talking to other.
How do you avoid moderation actions against some communities negatively impact other communities as the people from the 'banned' community flee to the unbanned one.
How do you ensure consistent high quality moderation without going bankrupt.
The list goes on and on. High quality moderation is not a solved problem, we don't really even know what it looks like at scale.
Don't think there is a single company during the entire reign of capitalism that this has happened.
Additionally, Reddit is owned by Advance Publications which is pretty much entirely the Newhouse billionaire family. Don't think we've every seen such as a thing as a compassionate old school billionaire. Their other major holding Condenast, is presently embroiled in accusations of racism/discrimination despite portraying themselves as 'allies'.
By hiring Michael Seibel they do exactly what a profit driven company would do. Hire an incredibly competent person who espouses the same values (cut throat Silicon Valley ideology), has been molded by the same kind of people (Ivy league education), and serves as a great "UNO reverse' card for any accusation of the company unilaterally chasing money over ethics.
If an activist was hired, they would steer the company into a direction that matches their lip service and not actual intentions.
and I don't mean to say it is an evil thing to do or something. It is entirely in line with what almost every other company does. It is a perfectly capitalistic thing to do and will change nothing. As was the original intention.