An odd thing to say, considering that the two examples have opposing left/right political vectors. I think you are reacting to this discussion as if it were an attack on /r/science. I have nothing in particular against /r/science. It's just that using the name as an example is clearer than saying /r/some-generic-subject-area.
/r/science has rules which are clear and which I linked.
That is a good set of rules, which seem well constructed for the purpose of excluding such bias. /r/science has the particular advantage of being attached to disciplines/fields which have good intellectual hygiene. There are other areas of general interest which have the particular disadvantage of being attached to fields where cronyism and intellectual dishonesty are rampant.
And you can't see how competition for upvote volume at the expense of everything else would lead to plummeting quality?
You couldn't do it with upvote volume. AI isn't yet up to the task. Perhaps moderation is the only solution. (Perhaps metamoderation?) Reddit did luck out with /r/science. Other areas drew the short straw and are highly biased and crony-moderated.
That's not an example that's a strawman.
> How does one draw the line?
/r/science has rules which are clear and which I linked.
> I think /r/science should become something of an aggregation like /r/popular.
Garbage?
> This way, there isn't the temptation of power and corruption coming from the power over the generic name. Then different moderation groups can compete on an even playing field by their merits, like even handed-ness and intellectual honesty.
And you can't see how competition for upvote volume at the expense of everything else would lead to plummeting quality?