Upon uploading content, the user confirms to us that they are authorized by the copyright owner to upload the material, so there is some additional nuance regaring one user or point in time versus another. The issues with the loli content is more intrinsically related to the material itself, so you can expect it to be enforced more strictly to some degree.
The titles were wiped because it was the safest and fastest action to take at the time. We want to have the title pages available, though some of them have covers that might require editing beforehand.
Our legal department told us to take action and we took it. That is the extent of what I can or want to say regarding that.
I have some issues with your answer:
Under U.S. law, simply requiring users to confirm they own rights does not automatically shield a platform from liability. What matters is whether the site qualifies for DMCA Safe Harbor protection (17 U.S.C. §512). Having Terms of Service that say users must have rights does not eliminate platform liability and having a DMCA process helps but only if you guys genuinely qualify for safe harbor. If the site knowingly hosts widespread unlicensed manga, courts could find contributory infringement, vicarious infringement and loss of DMCA protection, which the more obvious the piracy on the site the weaker would be the safe harbor defense, which would be the case in this instance, which would be even weaker at the moment that it gets to the court that this site monetize the content at some degree (ads, subscriptions, etc.).
About the "Loli content", taking into account that we are still based on the U.S. law as your TOS mentions, if we look at Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) the Supreme Court ruled that purely virtual images (drawings/CGI) are protected by the First Amendment because they don't involve a real child victim, even with the PROTECT Act of 2003 the material must be "obscene" under the Miller Test (lacking serious literary, artistic, or scientific value), it has to meet all three standards (The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find it appeals to prurient interest; It depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and It lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value) to "pass" the test, which in many cases was already proved to be almost impossible.
Even if we take this all into account and you are trying to shield yourselves for the future, as mentioned several times here, you would have to delete almost 90% of the entire site since most would fall under the same aspects and now, because you selective deleted some of it, you are liable to have the knowledge about the content that is portrayed in the web and have full moderation of it, which would go back to the defense of safe harbor to be totally lost at this point, and even popular series, as Berserk, would be in the same category as the series that were removed as of now.
This is even more serious since one of your staff members made the insane decision of calling some users of your site as "pedophiles" which would now enter the Pandering Provision (18 U.S.C. § 2252A) as the site having awareness of the content hosted on the platform and pandering for said content and the moderation having the knowledge and means to moderate it.
From my perspective, this is an incredibly reckless decision, especially if you did not receive any formal judicial notice and still chose to move forward with it. Acting preemptively in this way could ultimately make any future legal case against you more complicated and difficult to defend.
My concern also extends to what this decision signals for the future, particularly the strong influence the legal department appears to have over the site’s direction. If this is the first step, it would not be surprising if, within a few months or a year, the prevailing view becomes that all unauthorized content on the site should be removed on the grounds that you are liable for it in one way or another. These are similar steps to those taken by platforms like Crunchyroll and Fakku. Yet just last year, you stated that this was not your intention, even after NamiComi became involved.