This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
In the United States, social media organizations are not legally liable for what users do or say on their platforms and are free to regulate expression in any way they see fit. As a result, dark corners of the Internet have emerged to foster communities whose sole purpose is to create and share content that subjugates members of traditionally marginalized groups. The subreddit,/r/TheRedPill, is one such community. This article explores whether hiding this offensive content through digital “quarantine” or removing the community altogether is more ethically justifiable. We draw on theorizing about the ethics of social media content moderation to develop a framework for ethical decision-making based on transparency, corporate social responsibility, and human dignity to guide decisions about content removal. Using/r/TheRedPill as a case study, we argue that the most ethically justified course of action is for Reddit to remove the site entirely from its platform.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carlson et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: