Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Not to defend the mods, since I’m not going back to Reddit even to read a post, but mods also have to make sure the discussion can happen. You can’t just have one big fat orange guy shouting down everyone else and call it a discussion. Even “free speech” needs to follow some rules, starting with respecting others’ right to free speech, and you’re not free from the consequences of your speech.
Let’s take the atrocity in Israel as a prime example. It’s surely a horror we should be outraged by and demand action, but why is it coming up in a discussion about police abuse of force? I’ll support you being outraged for that cause, but you need to respect that there are other causes as well and that we have the right to freely discuss without someone derailing it by shouting down the discussion
I don’t have an issue with reasonable moderation, but I object to the idea that every pattern of moderation should just be accepted and that censorship isn’t a problem worth worrying about.
Reddit doesn’t have a modlog, so most of the removed comments are lost forever and there is no accountability for them, but a few of them can be seen through Reveddit, and the ones I see are not off topic or ideological rants. For instance the first one I see is
Are they going to shoot up the wrong car with innocent ladies in it again looking for this guy?
Edit: Guess they managed to take him down without hitting any civilians, I guess good job for only killing the bad guy
Obviously referring to the Chris Dorner shootings which would be very relevant here, in a very reasonable way. I think it’s fair to assume that r/news moderators simply don’t want that guy mentioned at all.
Not to defend the mods, since I’m not going back to Reddit even to read a post, but mods also have to make sure the discussion can happen. You can’t just have one big fat orange guy shouting down everyone else and call it a discussion. Even “free speech” needs to follow some rules, starting with respecting others’ right to free speech, and you’re not free from the consequences of your speech.
Let’s take the atrocity in Israel as a prime example. It’s surely a horror we should be outraged by and demand action, but why is it coming up in a discussion about police abuse of force? I’ll support you being outraged for that cause, but you need to respect that there are other causes as well and that we have the right to freely discuss without someone derailing it by shouting down the discussion
I don’t have an issue with reasonable moderation, but I object to the idea that every pattern of moderation should just be accepted and that censorship isn’t a problem worth worrying about.
Reddit doesn’t have a modlog, so most of the removed comments are lost forever and there is no accountability for them, but a few of them can be seen through Reveddit, and the ones I see are not off topic or ideological rants. For instance the first one I see is
Obviously referring to the Chris Dorner shootings which would be very relevant here, in a very reasonable way. I think it’s fair to assume that r/news moderators simply don’t want that guy mentioned at all.