Sincere question: Was it actually criticism of Serena Williams ("she exhibited poor behavior", "she's lost a step", "her fashion sense sucks", etc) or was it abuse ("she's a man", "she's an ugly pig", etc)?

Banning because of the former is unacceptable, but I see no reason why we would expect her husband to permit the latter on his platform.

What it is is rich and powerful people using their influence to step on the little guy, and that behavior trickling down in a bizarre quest for faux-vindication by petty commissars. The kind of person who wants to be a Reddit mod on a big subreddit is not your average Joe. If they're not outright getting paid under the table by interested actors, they're doing it for the power trip.

Although I must confess I'm no expert on Reddit. After all, real men discuss Serena on 4chan and post gun videos on Pornhub /s

I feel like this is possible on every website ever made.

How many are going to say no?

If the company is public, all of this is covered under SOX compliance or other regulations. If you're truly going to get fired by the CEO for not complying, better that than be the one thrown under the bus when the SEC (or other gov body) comes knocking.

Idea: Reddit, but the comments are a blockchain.

Don't get me wrong, as much as I support the idea of no censorship, there's always a need for a janitor to clean somebody's graffiti on the wall. In an online world, those janitors tend to abuse their power though.

What could anyone do about it, other than promising not to do it again? I guess there could be some kind of certificate transparency thing? Other people could make copies of messages and verify that they haven't changed?

I firmly believe people should be held responsible for what they say and do but there has to be freedom to say things that are offensive or scary or there's no protection for any speech.

What bothered people was spez editing the actual database, no timestamp, etc...

There's zero specification in either law around oversight into or appeal of any decision to disallow a gun purchase on the basis of what the reviewer finds.

A proposed law isn't a law, after all. Anyone can propose anything.

This "proof" they have the ability to do that somehow signaling danger is nothing short of ridiculous.

Reddit is not always casual chat.

There is hide, delete and edit with a clear history for all involved.

Touching the database changes the record of reality without leaving history of it happening.

The database edit is what drove the spez controversy.

This isn't some kind of dark secret backdoor spez built into the reddit codebase. Immature and stupid action maybe, but some kind of scary sentinel of how admin power can be uniquely abused at reddit, it isn't.

The argument here isn't if he should have did it, he obviously shouldn't have. The argument is about how incredibly overdone the outrage over the specific circumstances is.

Of course it is possible.

That it was done, and why is a big issue.

And it did not need to be done, nor that way.

A direct edit can make sense, and when it does, there is also every reason to communicate why.

The why of what spez did is a significant contributor to the controversy. Lack of a record and no communication, until forced is another significant contributor.

People do care. And this is a basic trust problem inherent to computing.

Ever notice how there is often redundancy and history present?

This is why.

Another place this shows up is electronic voting. Lack of personally identifiable records leave people in a position of forced trust, unable to know the record is accurate.

Motive plays a role here.

Spez had a childish, bigger dick type ego motive. Untrustworthy.

The same exact thing done to protect someone, and done with rational communication would be far less controversial.

As for the hard drive, the defense must speak to motive and it must be compelling, or we are all likely to trust the person doing that necessary work.

Your comparison is germane, but too simple, in my view.