/r/politics does not outright run itself as a safe space for a particular group though, unlike /r/the_donald. Any criticism on /r/the_donald gets you a ban, whereas any criticism on /r/politics just gets you downvotes, which are entirely consistent with how the sub should be run.

I'd argue that being forth right is a better approach. While they won't often ban on politics they do enforce a timeout when your comment gets down voted having a similar effect.

That's how the website works, that's not anything particular about the /r/politics mods.

Its actually a feature you can turn on and off as a moderator.

Are you talking about spam filter settings? Otherwise no, such a setting does not exist.

it's not just /r/the_donald that has that no criticism rule. I recently noticed that r/latestagecapitalism has that same rule. The number of subreddits where dissenting opinions are not allowed appears to be growing.

There are dozes of anti trump subreddits which will ban you for not conforming. It's same with most if not all ideologically driven subreddits. They always have not pinned "go to r/<our-ideology>Debate if you are not conforming" type thing. To me every one of these echo chamber subreddits should be prevented from appearing on r/all (which is how people get exposed to these subreddits most often)

That simply isn't true. The most obvious evidence of why: there was a huge, endless, sprawling debate about Sanders vs Clinton. I wouldn't deny that /r/politics leans to the left, but it's a big stretch from that to a subreddit dedicated entirely to promoting a single candidate at all costs.

And that debate frequently ended with HRC people being called corporate shills and whatnot. Meltdown after Sanders loosing was sweet though!

No it's not. This exactly the kinda of propaganda you should be aware of.

/r/the_donald specifically exists to spread false information, and to dox and harass people.

/r/politics is opinionated because of it's user base. It's not intentionally a propaganda machine.

And /r/the_donald would say just the opposite. The thing about propaganda – why it works so well – is that it's presented as authentic civil discourse. There's no clear cut demarcation between the two types of speech.

One could argue that /r/the_donald uses the banhammer to maintain order (the narrative), and /r/politics uses shill comments+downvoting to do the same.

What you just described sounds to me like an authoritarian court versus a democratic forum.

That is, excepting the "shill" name-calling -- it leads me to believe that you are in fact speaking on behalf of r/the_donald. If that's true, then I know why the term was used. If not, what leads you to believe that anybody involved in discussion in r/politics are "shills".

> If not, what leads you to believe that anybody involved in discussion in r/politics are "shills".

Because Hillary had hired people to do exactly that:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolli...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-pac-spends-dollar1-mill...

Remember someone leaked a private Slack chat of Reddit admins where one was boasting of receiving their CTR check.

I think you're reaching a little here. The parent comment stated that r/politics uses shill comments and down votes as a control measure to align with a narrative.

If that is true, supported by the articles you referenced:

-- r/politics has over 3 million subscribers, with an average of 30 - 40 active users during the daytime. -- if every one of those users was a "shill" commenter then every single one would have earned $0.30 for their efforts. That's not counting other forms of social media.

I have to admit some skepticism toward the assertion that the entire subreddit is a controlled narrative. Instead, it seems that there will be those who adamantly support the people they're paid to support, and that those users are in the minimum. Instead I think it's just a general consensus what the popular ideals are in there vs. r/t_d. Besides, not sure if you've been around there much but I certainly don't see much love lost for HC.

> The thing about propaganda – why it works so well – is that it's presented as authentic civil discourse.

so many people don't realize this. if you can tell it's propaganda on the face, it's shitty propaganda.

Communities that run against reddit's primary demographic base (college-aged, democrat-leaning male atheists with an interest in computers) must be liberal with the banhammer or they will be overrun. There is no other coherent way to hold a discussion contrary to the site's zeitgeist; you get too many trolls, invaders, and impostors. Many subs that try to run contrary to reddit's narrow primary demographic end up having to go entirely private; most serious conservative and religious subs have done this.

Point being liberal application of the banhammer should not be interpreted as proof of the mod's intent to run a "propaganda machine" as much as a necessity of holding a discussion within parameters that presume certain reddit-unfriendly positions.

> /r/the_donald specifically exists to spread false information, and to dox and harass people.

Can you substantiate that? I went there a few times after election and didn't see any doxing or harassing. There were gays, trans, immigrants people of all walks of life all seemingly having fun with their frog image or whatever they call it, and don't remember seeing a lot of harassment. I didn't follow but maybe you're saying it is hidden somewhere or they are subversive and just pretend to be nice?

And what's even worse: /r/politics doesn't look like a parody (like the_donald does) so some people take it like it's a neutral place for discussion :P