This is like the Stazi proclaiming support for privacy laws.
It not only confirmed the leanings and behavior but undeniably so.
It is why "redditor" exists as an insulting term, but fb/twitter/etc don't have one. Not necessarily just the users, but the mods too.
It really is. If someone mentions using reddit irl I usually assume that they're bad news and steer clear
For many hot topic items no matter how innocuous or relevant to the subreddit, unless there is a large and active moderator team that can handle the fallout and apply appropriate anti-flame measures, the course that is easiest to take is "just delete it as soon as it starts."
The moderation tools are blunt. Remove and approve. Shadow bans aren't things that can be done easily by mods (possible, but takes a fair bit of manual curation and getting into the automod setup). Delayed visibility can't be done (I'd love to have a "any reply to a comment that has a significant number of votes in that post is delayed by 15 minutes").
If there's a post that is "this will take me 1 minute to delete now" or "this will take me 1 hour to clean up later" - that 1 minute to delete now will likely win every time.
Note that the alternative isn't "but you can just leave it up and users will behave" - it is "this sub will become unmoderated, full of spam, and eventually closed down." If the mod is at all interested in the topic, that's not a desirable state.
So what?
There's nothing in Section 230 or any other US law (this is a US case, so I'll focus there only) that makes being a "zealot" or a "troll" or "relentlessly punish[ing] any non-conformance woth[sic] their chosen orthodoxy" or "restrict[ing] discussion, dissent and freedom of expression" in a private actor's[0] forum a criminal act or (with the exception of defamation[1]) a civil tort.
Don't like what folks say or how they moderate? Ignore them. Or sue them (most likely a waste of time and money, but don't let that stop you).
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/17/18682099/supreme-court-ru...