Then there is just arbitrary or malicious enforcement of the rules. /r/Star_Trek was told by admins they would be banned if they talked about /r/StarTrek at all, so now that's a topic that's no longer allowed in that sub. But there are tons of subs set up specifically to talk about other subs, where just about all posts are about other subs (such as /r/subredditdrama), and the admins never bother them.
I don't think we can have a conversation about moderation when people are pretending that the current situation doesn't exist, and that moderation is only ever done for altruistic reasons. It's like talking about police reform but pretending that no police officer has ever done anything wrong and not one of them could ever be part of a problem.
They don't even bother to use the np.reddit "no participation" domain. Most other subs don't even allow you to link outside the sub, because they've been warned by admins about brigading.
Their rules barely even mention brigading: https://www.reddit.com/r/subredditdrama/wiki/rules, and you have to go to the expanded version of the rules to find even this, which just says not to vote in linked threads.
Literally the entire purpose of this sub is to brigade and harass other subs. Their politics align with those of the admins, though, so it's allowed. It is blatant bullying at the tacit encouragement of the people running the site.
I joined reddit in 2005 and have moderated several subreddits. The admins have never imposed anything resembling that on any subreddit I have moderated. I have a suspicion they impose it when they see a large amount of brigading behavior.
Perhaps it's not applied in an entirely fair or even manner, but I suspect it's only applied when there's an actual problem.
Is simply linking to other threads on reddit sufficient for you to consider something promoting brigading?
As I mentioned previously, linking to other subs, or even simply _talking_ about /r/StarTrek, was enough for admins to accuse /r/Star_Trek of brigading. They threatened to shut them down unless they stopped members from doing that, and so you're not allowed to do it in the sub anymore.
Whether you think that linking to other subs is brigading or not, it's clear that admins call it brigading when they want to shut down subs, yet then let continue on much larger subs dedicated to the act as long as the admins like the sub.
The "good" subreddits will get posters banned left and right, but accounts are cheap and they return.
The "bad" subreddits get banned.
Just mentioning this because I agree with the point you make (in general).
It's literally the difference between your feed being filtered by your choices & preferences and someone else imposing theirs upon you.
In that vein, this went up on HN the other day: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/moderation-is-differen...
"I don't trust left-y CEO's", is a fair enough answer, but really that's where the counter-claim seems to end. Now that we have a right-wing CEO, looks like the shoe is on the other foot[1]
[1] https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1588174959817658368?s=20&t=F9...
True, but not really a good argument for the "trust us, this person needed banning, no we will not give any details"-style of moderation that most companies have applied so far. And you can see topics, so you'll generally notice when topic are being banned, not behavior, because they usually don't align perfectly.
As for specific platforms, aka Reddit, how can one be sure that right wingers on that platform aren't in fact more likely to engage in bad behavior that left wingers? It might be because they are being targeted, but it could also be that that group of people on that platform tend to act more aggressively.
I am NOT saying that I know if Reddit is fair in its moderation, I just don't know.
At the same time, it's trivial to demonstrate that YouTube and Twitter (easy examples) primarily target conservatives with their "moderation". Just look at who primarily uses major alternative platforms.
Terrible take.
Actual data analysis shows that at worst conservatives are moderated equally, and at best, less than non-conservatives.
Here's something to chew on: https://forward.com/fast-forward/423238/twitter-white-nation...
Here is some actual data, which (predictably) shows that conservatives are targeted significantly more for suspensions:
But that's besides the point, because it's much simpler than that. You don't need elaborate analysis to see that people tired of Twitter "moderation" filled 4 other platforms: Gab, Parler, Minds and Truth Social. Literally all of them are characterized as right-wing by the same left-wing media outlets that claim that Twitter is impartial in moderation.
I'm tired of gaslighting around this issue. Just within replies to my above comment I've gotten two contradictory statements. One, that there is no bias in Twitter moderation, because conservatives are actually targeted less. Two, that there is no bias because conservatives are more likely to break rules, so they should be banned more often. We have two diametrically opposite descriptions of reality that nevertheless converge on the same conclusion. This is ideology-driven reasoning at its worst.
The fact that your "logic" is that extremists like KKK and other rightwing nut jobs are not allowed on twitter and thus have to create their own sites is proof of a double standard is absolutely insane.
You're so busy with your persecution fetish you cannot even see simple reason.
So no, you're just factually wrong here.
Yet, the biggest communist sub of all, r/politics is doing perfectly fine.
"moderating behavior"? Bullshit, when unhinged redditors are constantly accusing conservatives of being "traitors", "nazis", there is so much unhinged comments on these subs that it clearly demonstrate a general left wing bias when it comes to moderation, in favor of the most extreme left.
Chapotraphouse was only banned because they harassed the wrong sub, but when it was about harassing people on subs deemed not progressives, reddit admins didn't care a bit.
Persecution fetish much buddy?
It seems that some unhinged people here can't help making everything about their sick sexual thrills. And I'm not your buddy.
And, for what it’s worth, it seems perfectly reasonable to label those who tried to overthrow our democratic government “traitors”.
Obviously, none of the affluent idiots from chapo or at hexbear controlling r/politics r/news or r/worldnews are really communists, they are just rich asshats that just pretend to be, my point still stands. They are still spouting marxist non sense, violent speech, and their behavior isn't moderated, as long as they don't target "the wrong people".
(And, separately, almost no one who argues about anything being "communist" is using the same definition of that word as the person they're arguing with, but that's a different problem entirely)
And you have no arguments, so you can only resort to personal attacks. That makes you a troll.
> (This is why people on the left and people on the right both think they are being targeted)
An enticing idea but simply not the case for any popular existing social network. And it's triply not true on yishan's reddit which both through administrative measures and moderation culture targets any and all communities that do not share the favoured new-left politics.