Over the past 5 years r/politics has quietly banned users for thoughtful critical comments devoid of profanity (the proof has been shared elsewhere such as WatchRedditDie), and deleted inconvenient current event posts before they hit 100+ upvotes. The mods leave alone flippant casual unpersuasive conservative comments knowing they'll be downvoted and make conservatives look bad, and censor the thoughtful persuasive ones.

It hasn't been just the downvoting, but as the crowd is thinned, increasingly more bots inflate votes, and those who remain are more deeply steeped in their bias perhaps it will be mainly downvotes from here on out.

You're silenced by moderators or you're silenced by users. I don't see much difference in the end.

There's a huge difference. The freedom to disagree is a fundamental part of free speech. The very fact that you get a big response from the community means you are definitely being heard. They just don't agree with you. When moderators do it, nobody even sees what you are saying.

Have you ever considered the notion that maybe your views are unpopular? Possibly even misinformed?

Maybe if everyone disagrees with something you say, it's not the rest of the world's fault?

Are you Principal Skinner going "Am I so out of touch? No, it is the children who are wrong."

This can go both ways. A majority view may be held complacently without being challenged much or often. A minority view encounters constant resistance and reminders that it is not held by many, and may potentially be more robust because of that. Either way, a belief ought to be based on facts and sound reasoning rather than group pressure, and even the most strongly held position ought to be held provisionally and subject to revision in the light of human fallibility.

>a belief ought to be based on facts and sound reasoning

Sounds good but what happens when a loud group bases their beliefs on alternative facts (and select only alternative facts that specifically support their belief)?

> a belief ought to be based on facts and sound reasoning

What is the basis for this belief?

The difference is that the community observed your opinion and decided it provided no value. That could be a pro or con, based on many factors.

Comments "silenced" by users can generally still be found by sorting by "controversial".

I think you’re commenting without having tried to post on r/conservative

Not being listened to is very different from being silenced.

If the first few people to see something downvotes you into oblivion before the majority arriving later get a chance to see your content, that's silencing, not merely not being listened to. This is doubly true when those first few people are likely to be regulars that refresh pages often. This means that a few people that are ideologically on the same page can drive the ideological view of an entire forum without actually being a moderator.

Tell that to the moderators of /r/anarchism, they are very ban happy and seem to relish the power.

Then you are lost.