And that doesn't even relate to this topic as what you're referring to is on a subreddit basis and is determined by a set of volunteer mods not reddit admins.

Not true. The post body says [removed]. If the user deleted it, it would say [deleted].

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/h9ctho/serious_a...

Edit: another user determined it was both removed and deleted.

Also, the user posted a comment complaining about the removal.

How do we know that? The body just says [removed] and the user is marked as [deleted].

If the admins can alter the content of your posts, then surely they can delete / remove content and have it show whatever they choose.

It's not dead, and I say thankfully because it not being dead retains its state as a containment mechanism of what is easily the worst group of internet users in internet history.

I fear for the day Reddit falls and its userbase spills out looking for another avenue to be comforted with groupthink, newspeak and feel goods for the Brands We Love.

People are in different stages of life and seek solace in other people having similar experiences. Thus, the sexually frustrated congregate, the depressed congregate, drug enthusiasts (and abusers) congregate, disgruntled ex-<insert organization> congregate, you name it, and angry/sad/anxious people with a shared condition will congregate in search of validation/confidence.

But the opposite is also true - people with a shared hobby/passion/vision congregate as well and create some really fun and uplifting communities.

As the subs where you can speak with some degree of openness are ever smaller, it's not worth the time anymore.

And honestly I WISH nobody used reddit anymore, maybe it could roll back 10 years when it was frankly more fun, but it sure seems like more people than ever are using it.

How do we feel about pre-emptive moderation? Is it warranted? Is it warranted every time? Only certain topics?

More precisely I would imagine they don't care about facilitating/refereeing culture wars inside their subs, cause lord only knows how much work that would be.

That wasn't what I was asking-however.

>> It was a combination of things, so I can't say for sure what could have prevented this. More understanding parents definitely would have helped. Other perspectives online, as well. Detransitioners frequently get shut down on the internet, as their experiences are often labeled "transphobia." Which is utter bullshit, in my opinion. Perhaps if I had read a similar story as my own those years back, I would have had second thoughts.

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/h9ctho/serious_a...

Ironically, the AskReddit mods contributed to this problem by removing the post.

The mod then gloated about banning dozens of people other this and that "LGBTQIA+ people run the subreddit", and that "the lack of discrimination (...) for being cis or being white or being straight or being a man overshadows any discrimination they would receive for their adhd"

I don't think that's great moderation given the subject of the subreddit but what can you even do about it that would not be time consuming and pointless?

My model for moderation would be opt-in. I want to be able to see everything by default but be able to see what moderators have flagged as inappropriate. I could then grow to trust some or all of those moderators and just hide everything they flag by default. But I'd always be able to go and quickly evaluate whether I still trust those moderators to be doing the right thing and not just hiding things they disagree with.

These are just folks who either showed up early, or demonstrated they thought about the issue the same way as the person who started the reddit thought.

https://www.reddit.com/r/detrans/

Here's an exercise - check out /r/unpopularopinion today. Full of perfectly boring normal opinions like "MTV should go back to showing music videos". All of the content just seems completely fake. There's not an unpopular opinion in sight.

Now go the Wayback Machine and take a look at that same sub from say, three to five years ago (which feels like a short time to me these days). Plenty of deeply unpopular, controversial, thought-provoking opinions. You don't have to like them, but they were real.

This isn't a bad thing. It's not like Reddit has monopoly powers. Some people want to belong to communities that have agreed-upon values.

https://archive.vn/KojNR#selection-7875.0-7947.5

Brief recap on its current state of affairs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqx4wdn4Odc (18 minutes and change)

Terms that have no distinctive power have little value, so while I'd certainly consider them "users", I wouldn't consider them part of the community, much like a tourist staying in a village for a weekend isn't a part of the village's community.

This is quick becoming a debate over definitions, but I think reddit thinks of itself as both having a community and also as having individual communities. For example, anybody who has had a post in their niche community get to the front page understands that there's a larger community they're a part of that is different from their smaller one.

To me, community implies some amount of connections between the members. I've never put a number on it, but basically something like "if you randomly pick X people from the group, at least Y of them will know each other". That would limit both the size and also do a reasonable test for community membership: if nobody in the community knows you, you're not a part of the community.

Whilst there isn't inherently incorrect or morally wrong about detransitioning in itself, often when brought up it can lead a person to an idea which is incorrect - essentially applying the anecdotal evidence of a Reddit thread to all situations.

Thus, moderators of subreddits (and administrators, although I think that whilst it is bad when they do so, it isn't as common as many would believe) feel conflicted on the matter. Should they allow the discussion to continue, almost guaranteeing that somebody is going to form misconceptions from the thread? Or should they shut it down, stifling free speech but at the same time reducing the level of overall animosity towards minorities in the community, and preventing people from forming misconceptions?

Ultimately, I think that it should always really come down on the side of free speech, as long as they aren't being blatantly hostile. However, in my opinion, if we really want to have a positive "marketplace of ideas", as some describe it, we really need to educate people from a young age on logical reasoning, cognitive biases and argumentative fallacies the same way we would teach history, geography or the arts. Whilst I think that's unlikely to happen in our current political climate, given that keeping people uneducated is a very effective way to make them vote for those who make the most compelling surface-level arguments, it seems to be the only good solution for the conflict laid out above.

This almost inevitably happens when a site gets popular enough. There are only so many intelligent people actively posting on the internet, and it's impossible to have a site with 100,000 users (let alone the >400,000,000 of Reddit) with a high fraction of them providing good content.

Certainly the heavy-handed censorship of the Reddit administration is a disincentive for people who are interested in topics at the edges of the overton window (i.e. most of the interesting people online).

See the following comment https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/h9ctho/serious_a...

The second paragraph has four sources that cite some transexuals rejecting the label of transgender, so language-policing others based on your personal preferences is quite inappropriate here.

This is just absurd.

* https://foundationinc.co/lab/reddit-statistics/

* https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/reddit.com

> and no one I know uses it anymore.

You say this as if it is relevant to your point.