I disagree that the Dost Test even applies to those images. These were not "nude or seminude" images in the first place. They were, at most, girls in bikinis. These subreddits specifically did not allow semi-nudity.
The Dost test specifically mentions a minor does not have to be nude for the photograph to be considered pornography. That's just one possible criteria to consider.
You do in fact seem to be correct on that point. However, I do not think that your assertion about most of the images failing the Dost test is correct, or that you have adequate evidence to make such an assertion.
I also don't think, if it were true, that that would call for a new, sweeping policy. The rule merely needs to be "nothing illegal", and then that rule needs to be enforced. "Suggestive content featuring minors" is just insanely broad.
The rule itself is broad, and could encompass things like popular cartoons, artistic works, and even clips from television shows that hint at sexuality. However, that's not how it's been enforced, and I don't see the admins using it to remove those things. The issue is "borderline" material that would take careful consideration as to whether or not it is pornographic.
As I touched on in another comment, I doubt a father posting an album of his vacation to /r/pics that happens to have his 12 and 16 year old daughters in swimsuits in it would be against this rule. However, someone posting an album filled with candid photographs of minors in swimwear at the beach would probably be removed, even if the person who posted it would not be prosecuted under US law.
If you feel that course of action is against this person's right, for whatever reason, that's fine. But please, do not think this is some slippery slope to a prude reddit. Just because the admins are removing what is— at very best— child erotica doesn't mean they're bending to the will of some overbearing "Please, think of the children!" mentality. The stuff removed was truly perverse and unsettling and brought nothing of value to the community.
If you wish to discuss this further, there exists [a subreddit][0] created by some of the very people who first initiated the removal of these subreddits that is open to discussion. You can find a handful of informative threads in there (and the sister subreddits) as to why [this wasn't some raid by Something Awful][1] and how some of the content posted [truly was child pornography][2]. You might have to wade through some heavy circlejerking, but if you're interested in why those subreddits were actually removed, that's a good place to start.
That was probably more than was necessary, but I'd like to use this as sort of a final comment on the subject. I'm so tired of arguing with people who feel the need to defend a person's right to post at best stolen pictures of underage children and at worst legitimate child pornography on the grounds that "maybe some of the content wasn't totally illegal!". Not saying that is you.
From what I understand, the real policy was more "Anything that you can manage to somehow twist into something that vaguely resembles legal in low-light conditions from a minimum distance of 100 feet away is allowed."
