I happen to be a member of a subreddit you'd probably describe as "racism and hate speech." Obviously I find some redeeming value there.

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.

It is that complicated.

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.

Board members aren't really in a position to work on specific problems - their role is to set high-level priorities, and Reddit's already indicated fighting hate speech is a priority. If you want someone who's empowered to make specific concrete changes, that's not a board member.