Technology

I am sure they could use less drastic ways to rise revenue, clearly without spreading lies about Apollo creator and alienating moderators. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. And than there is very wrong, Reddit way to do things.

What really told me that reddit was squandering its revenue sources was when they shuttered redditgifts two years ago. Maybe there were issues behind the scenes, but they had commissions from the storefront and from elves, and something reddit has never been particularly good at: Good publicity. And instead of figuring out how to make it profitable, they just killed it.

They didn't even bother to answer questions why.

It was at that moment I knew the current leadership was rudderless, and now everyone's finally come around to it.

A user on a third party app isn't as valuable to the company. They miss out of all the valuable spying and tracking they can do by installing their own software on your phone. Plus just the presence of this party apps means you can't demands extra permissions on your own app and tell users to deal or suck it (in nice PR speak). So it makes sense to charge TP apps more for reducing the "value" of a given user.

Charging less is basically subsidizing third party apps out of your own pocket - which was exactly the complaint in the first place. Although it would've been better to gradually ramp up prices to less-subsidized and eventually to a profitable partnership.

Respectfully, I think you're overreading the meaning of the Mavrix Photos case. That case involved the most popular LiveJournal community, moderated by a team led by a literal employee, where the mods reviewed the submissions by users before posting, and only posted about 1/3 of the submitted content. It was a human-required process for anything to be posted at all, and it went through the moderation team that was arguably controlled by LiveJournal. And even then, the appellate court sent it back down to the trial court to figure out whether a jury would determine whether that procedure counts as content being posted at the direction of a user, rather than at the direction of the company. It also made clear that some pre-posting review would still be OK even by the company's agents/employees, such as when they manually review for pornography/spam/etc.

And after this year's Supreme Court decision in Twitter v. Taamneh, which reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling that Twitter and similar companies could be liable for user activity on those services, it's pretty clear that having paid/employed moderators doesn't actually make services liable for what they fail to stop on their platforms. Liability will only happen when an employee actually does the thing that gives rise to liability (e.g., posting infringing material themselves).

So no, I disagree with your analysis that paying or compensating moderators gives rise to risk of liability. Especially after the most recent Supreme Court cases on Twitter and Google, which call the Mavrix reasoning into question.