Where there is no harm, there can be no foul.
Also, this is speaking in a way that might sound like some referencing some legal standard, or being an exhaustive or overwhelming philosophical analysis. But, even were these assertions true, I suggest that the argument is missing the issue raised.
Specifically, the image used as an example of 'ok' in one part of the Imgur policy document arguably hits all over the specific language of the harassment section of the same document. See quoted parts.
It seems an incredibly poor example to choose, and it's arguably a renewed instance of harassing image posting by their own definitions.
(yes, yes, I'm aware of the concept of "natural rights", I've read the Second Treatise, blah blah—it's a pretty idea, but it's weak, to put it mildly)
AFAIK they can stand up, kinda, if you have some foundational rules at the bottom that you're taking as divinely-revealed and unquestionable. Otherwise, not so much.
They're a good rhetorical tool and a nice shorthand for "thing we care about a lot", but I'm pretty sure it's a mistake to treat them as for-real real, to any greater degree than anything else we guard with laws and norms. Again, if you've got info that might change my mind, do share—it'd be really handy if they were real.
This would cover pretty much every quote tweet ever. Also, how is incitement to SUPPORT a person harassment? Please stop praising me?
They also seem to take a strong ideological position in hate speech where they hint that its fine to stereotype/discriminate majorities but not minorities.
The obvious example would be a propaganda image to garner support for Adolf Hitler, in a way that doesn't fall under harassment of other groups. It's (probably intentionally) worded such that it can apply to any controversial figure that Imgur's administration dislikes, though.
Caption on example photo of mocking an obese person sitting on a too-small metal folding chair, consequently with a little butt crack visible (maybe at an MtG event):
> This buttcrack isn't intended to stimulate erotic feelings, so it's ok.
Two sections later, this photo itself seems to hit about half of the section:
> No hate speech, abuse or harassment.*
Including:
> attacks on people based on their [...] age, disability or medical condition
> harassment in the forms of [...] or inciting the community into support or disdain for a person, organization or community
> content that attacks, bullies, or harasses non-public people
> any image taken of or from someone without their knowledge or consent for the purpose of harassment, [...]
> Posts that might be taken down may include: [...] negative stereotypes, [...] malicious personal attacks on non-public individuals, [...] “fat people hate,” [...] photos taken of a non-public figure without their knowledge to make fun of them
Then this section claims to tend to err on the side of taking down content:
> It's important to keep in mind that not everything that's mean or insulting is hate speech. That said, the line between unintentional and serious attacks is sometimes difficult to identify, so we're likely to err on the side of taking abusive content down.
This seems sloppy to me. And, when it's in the context of a historically risky move of a major NSFW hoster going anti-NSFW, I wonder whether that part has been worked through meticulously.
Kudos to Imgur for surviving this long. I remember when they were effectively Reddit's image CDN, with the norm seeming to be Imgur-served images embedded with `img` elements in Reddit pages. I'd wondered how that worked, financially, and whether there were deals with Reddit, or it was just unofficially symbiotic. Imgur has been an important part of the Web for a long time, and hopefully they've figured out a good/necessary direction for 2023, and will execute well on it.