This is a weird article to me. I somehow agree with the conclusion but disagree with all of its points.
Unless my memory is failing me (possible, it’s late), it straw mans the article it’s referencing by implying Reddit would want to do something like that anyway. It also fails to offer a compelling narrative for what makes Reddit good to me because frankly, and I feel that a lot of people seem to be overlooking this here too, Reddit has plenty of its own problems.
Reddit is owned by Condé Nast and is largely used as a content mill to prop up its existing properties. Reddit is dominated by the Pareto principle. 80% of its content is generated by a very small subset of users. Reddit doesn’t have the best track record for free expression. Many subreddits have crazy moderators that volunteer for some Machiavellian rush and use their power to stifle or twist the narrative of public sentiment. Reddit doesn’t want to kill the golden goose, so when this kind of controversy arises or when controversial subreddits crop up they kill it with fire to protect their investment. Lastly, Reddit users more than half a decade ago were already lambasting the amount of corporate shilling and guerilla advertising that takes place on Reddit daily. A lot of this is, in fact, orchestrated by those users I mentioned who produce 80% of the content because yes, they have discovered a financial incentive to do so.
I wouldn’t deny that Reddit has any sincere users any more than I would deny that we have any sincere users here (I’m certainly not getting paid for this), but I’ve been a bit perturbed by the amount of whitewashed, positive vibes Reddit seems to be getting around here lately. I stick Reddit on the end of search queries too, but I feel like I still wade into results with a similar level of skepticism to that which I carry around most of the rest of the web.