Seems totally plausible and likely that he was added as moderator on a long list of subs and never perused or paid attention to that list, so how would it illustrate that? The infamy of that sub makes a lot more sense as evidence that he must have been aware of it, and that would be a legitimate basis for criticism. The moderator thing is just a memeable detail that is itself true but implies something that seems to be not true: that he had a direct role in operating the sub beyond running Reddit and allowing it to exist. I don’t think there’s a case for it having any significance beyond that false implication.
You know they made a custom award for the creator of the jailbait sub called “Pimp Daddy,” right? And that for a long time one of the autosuggested results from Google when you googled reddit was the jailbait sub? Do you think a CEO of a “major company” (not what reddit was at the time, they were still desperately drumming up users) is somehow unaware of what shows up when you google their company?
Seems totally plausible and likely that he was added as moderator on a long list of subs and never perused or paid attention to that list, so how would it illustrate that? The infamy of that sub makes a lot more sense as evidence that he must have been aware of it, and that would be a legitimate basis for criticism. The moderator thing is just a memeable detail that is itself true but implies something that seems to be not true: that he had a direct role in operating the sub beyond running Reddit and allowing it to exist. I don’t think there’s a case for it having any significance beyond that false implication.
Copying my reply from a different subthread:
Like I said, that kind of argument would be better, it’s not directly related to the moderator thing afaik