You guys do realize that it is possible to create a forum on the part of the internet that isn't Reddit, right?

I mean, how much truth do you think you are actually going to be allowed to spread on a website that is owned by Conde Nast?

100% mate, but Reddit is an already established group of large amounts of people and can be utilized to spread information quite efficiently because of that. It's a shame that it's under attack in the way it currently is.

At the very least we can be vocal about this and let other people know what's going on.

Other great platforms for spreading information such as YouTube are dealing with the same issues. It's not something we should just accept and ignore in my opinion.

I doubt I'll change anything by making these posts, but if I make even a couple people slightly more aware of what's going on around them It'll have been worth my effort.

Which is why it was so effective to control reddit (or Facebook, or Google) and lose tons of money before it "took off." It becomes the default place for lots of people not because of "choice," but because of necessity. Then it's hard to leave because so many other people are still there and it becomes an integral part of life (e.g. Facebook or Linked'In).

It is also possible to create a new sub-reddit on reddit. All of the complaints I see about post removals are the result of moderator actions, not admin actions.

No admin has ever removed a post from /r/POLITIC that didn't violate one of the overall reddit rules which are quite reasonable.

Reddit isn't the problem, power-tripping moderators in large sub-reddits are.

Reddit hasn't been owned by Conde Nast since 2011...

It was acquired by Condé Nast Publications in October 2006. In September 2011, Reddit was split from Condé Nast as a subsidiary of Condé Nast's parent company, Advance Publications. In 2012, Reddit was spun off and re-incorporated and now operates as an independent entity

or in other words, it is owned by Conde Nast, sneakily.

In other words it's owned by Advance Publications.

Reddit needs an impeachment button

the answer to our current dilemma seems to be in our hands as we type.

/r/conspiracy

Try to read and understand my comment before downvoting.

Moderation is essential to keeping any subreddit to turning into the old /r/atheism, full of memes and low quality posts.

Imagine if jij (/r/atheism mod) put changing the sub down to the vote, that sub never would've been fixed.

There aren't any voting systems that wouldn't let the sub be overrun by trolls and morons.

Edit: Don't forget that this is the internet, the place where people will vote to the detriment of any poll for lulz.

Imagine if this sub put it to the vote on whether or not mods should delete posts. Any guess as to how that vote would go?

Edit: Note the downvotes in absence of critical response. OP agreed with me, yet downvotes are a go just because I made a disagreement. Would you choose to censor dissent?

I agree with Rockran. All Subs need a certain level of moderation. He agrees with the general message here, he's just explaining the logical issues that would arise with what we're suggesting. We need to discuss those negative issues just the same as we need to discuss the positive aspects.

I agree, but look at /r/politics banning a plethora of domain names for reasons such as poor journalism. Poor journalism should simply be downvoted by us the users rather than censored completely. I agree some of those domains are questionable, but again, the idea of Reddit is that its users will downvote those submissions.

There are currently groups going through certain SubReddits and downvoting every new submission. It was happening in /r/Conspiracy less than a week ago. Sure there will always be people out there or groups doing things like this, but at the same time we need to make things more open or small groups will be allowed to get away with whatever they want regardless. Either way things can be corrupted, but the way I'm proposing will at least be more transparent. The moderators suggesting rule changes should have to come forward as individuals rather than hiding in anonymity.

And restricting memes, and low quality posts is one thing, but banning lists of domains from being submitted is another. Which is why I suggested that major rule changes should be up for vote, but less severe restrictions would be up to moderators as per usual.

The problem with your main idea of the community deciding upon rules is that that just opens the doors to manipulation.

If a mod asks the sub whether or not they agree with the rule of: "Should the news site [something] be banned from being posted to this sub?"

Then a manipulator can just vote yes a hundred thousand times - And now it looks like the community supports the rule.

Asking the community for a vote doesn't solve anything, but makes it much easier for manipulators to appear to be normal users.

Edit: How wonderful is it that I receive downvoted for supporting moderation. Believing in self-moderation without any moderator intervention whatsoever is a pipedream which has been PROVEN time and time again to not work. How about you explain your position before downvoting?

This subreddit is moderated, imagine what would happen if it weren't.

I disagree with you.

/r/atheism is worse now. The moderator did it no great service. He broke it.

But that's completely beside the point. /r/atheism is very different from the topic in the OP. That was about "cleaner" posts. This topic is about censorship - removing well thought out posts, often posts with thousands of upvotes, for... what reason, exactly?

Moderation is important, yes. But that is not what is happening. Censorship is happening.

If reddit is truly a service to its users, then its users should have some say in how it is run. Moderators run amok is bad. Moderators pulling stuff because they or TPTB don't like it is unacceptable.

Users should demand it be fixed or together we should find a better place to spend our time.

/r/atheism is worse now. The moderator did it no great service. He broke it.

Worse? It has ended the abysmal memes and encouraged sourced submissions.

You must be a child to think the new /r/atheism is worse off than the old. Are you a child? Children do use Reddit and whilst I would discourage children to use Reddit, I cannot stop you.

Moderators run amok is bad

Mods can do whatever they want with the subreddits they created. If you don't like how a mod behaves, then don't use that sub.

Users should demand it be fixed or together we should find a better place to spend our time.

That's correct, if you do not like a subreddit, you should find or create a better one.

You must be a child to think the new /r/atheism is worse off than the old. Are you a child?

Intriguing. These types of attacks are most often carried out by the religious when logic has failed them.

Nicely done.

To the rest of it, the hostility is very high in you.

Are you being hit in a spot that hurts, maybe?

Intriguing. These types of attacks are most often carried out by the religious when logic has failed them.

Are they? I wouldn't know, i'm not religious. Are you?

Are you being hit in a spot that hurts, maybe?

Not particularly, no. You havn't presented any information that may tickle my fancy. I am however optimistic that you may come up with new information.

Please continue.

Are they? I wouldn't know, i'm not religious.

See, that's the intriguing part. I would have expected better from a denizen of /r/atheism

Not particularly, no.

Then why all the hostility, bro?

I would have expected better from a denizen of /r/atheism

What exactly would you have expected?

7 Hail Mary's? 24 Dawkin Salutes? 93 Carl Sagan's? 3 Neil Tysons? I've not a clue, as do you.

I havn't submitted to /r/atheism in months. But who cares about facts, this isn't a subreddit for that!

Then why all the hostility, bro?

Well, bro... Bro? Really? No... Person.

You, person. My hostility arises from the idea that the old /r/atheism was new and comparable to greatest best Kim Jong Un incredible /r/atheism, when it simply wasn't.

That's about it really.

What exactly would you have expected?

Something a bit more... mature... than a baseless attack.

My hostility arises from the idea that the old

I never said it was sex with Jennifer Anniston, Megan Fox, and Oprah Winfrey all at once.

I just said it was better then than it is now.

If internet opinions inspire that much ire in you, perhaps you should consider seeking professional counseling. I mean, for your own well-being and for the safety of others around you, of course.

Something a bit more... mature... than a baseless attack.

What was the baseless attack? All of my attacks are with base. Rather solid bases, bases made of concrete or bone - Often sinew but usually milk.

I never said it was sex with Jennifer Anniston, Megan Fox, and Oprah Winfrey all at once.

If I weren't drunk I might understand you. However I am, so I do not.

Just what?

I mean, for your own well-being and for the safety of others around you, of course.

Most certainly, however that doesn't bear any resemblance, responsibility or rrr-r-r-r-respect?

Honestly your questions are largely, how to I say it... "Shit"?

Honestly your questions are largely, how to I say it... "Shit"?

Yet you appreciate them enough to continue responding.

I'm touched.

Sort of in the same way priests touch little boys.

I love responding to people that contact me.

It would be impolite not to.

What would you like to discuss?

The tendency of reddit users to get bent out of shape over the opinions and comments of other reddit users, maybe?

Absolutely.

If you observe my main comments in this thread, you'll see that despite initially opposing the OP, I didn't make opinions against the OP's further rebuttals, yet I still got downvoted.

I find that a rather bizarre phenomenon. What are your thoughts on the matter?

I find that upvoting and downvoting, and paying attention to the same, are largely tiresome folly.

The value in a person's thoughts lies not in the score the masses attribute to them, but in their content.

The value in a person's thoughts lies not in the score the masses attribute to them, but in their content.

Why not both?

Why is the score relevant?

There is a tendency on Reddit to upvote those you agree with.

If a post is phenomenally downvoted, it tend to be of disagreeable content.

It's simple judgement. Whilst the votes are often populated by morons, it's not a measure that should be dismissed.

Agreeable or disagreeable to... whom? Other people? The same people who buy Justin Beiber records and say he's the greatest since Britney Spears who herself is simply the greatest ever? The same people who are oblivious to the actions of the NSA?

Paying attention to up- or down-votes seems like following that pack, doesn't it?

I prefer to pay attention to the content. Maybe the pack got it right, maybe it didn't. The only way to know is to read the content.

Your comments are embarrassing to read. FYI.

Then... don't embarrass yourself by reading them?

This is not about censorship. Holy Fuck. Quit saying that. It's about moderation.

Right. Because removing posts with something like 8,000 positive karma is... moderation?

Yes?

Which rule(s) did it break, exactly?

You are asking the wrong question. That doesn't change the outcome. When a moderator edits or removed a comment, it's called moderating. No matter how popular or unpopular the comment is, it's still beings moderated.

The day you cannot create your own website and make your voice heard through that then let's talk about censorship. Until then let's talk moderation on reddit.

Re-defining it as moderation. Nice.

Nice job sticking up for the man. The GOP needs you. Have you volunteered yet?

Whoops. You had no intelligent reply?

Didn't have anything intelligent to reply to.

This isn't happening randomly. It's being done with the admin's encouragement. Maybe at the orders of the Newhouses, who own reddit. The admins wouldn't be going crazy except they had been instructed by their bosses.

You think the mods of subreddits actually talk to the owner of the company?

No. I think the owners talked to someone who talked to someone at reddit and they talked to the admins who attempt to follow their instructions.

kinda like I know someone that knows someone who knows the owner's niece's best friends mothers that told the janitors brother's aunt...

No. Kinda like suddenly your stream dries up. And if you follow it you find it's been blocked.

it's a business that requires a certain amount of finesse.

I think they have been obvious. There's been no subtility at all.

Possibly. It's very likely that at least 1 or 2 mods of each of the default (and very popular) subreddits is a shill. Well, I doubt they themselves talk to the owner of the company, there's probably an in-between guy that tells them what to do, based on what the higher-ups want.

do you have any evidence of that

Certainly. It's proved by their actions on reddit.

so because some posts get deleted that means that Newhouses directs the admins.. the admins direct the mods and the mods delete the posts? Seriously? Why don't we just take it one step up and say Obama is telling Newhouses what to do

You must be trying to avoid the pattern across many subs to not have noticed it.

[deleted]

Dude I appreciate your enthusiasm but have you seen the userbase of the default subs on reddit? Whenever I'm there which is everyday I'm gifted with one liners about the governments NSA spying program, these people just do not care about the world or what's going on so let them have at it I say.

I'm not trying to get you down in the dumps but trying to get the average users on reddit aware of the rampant censorship is like re arranging chairs on the titanic while its sinking. I agree with others that are seeking other avenues of relaying the current abuse of reddits censorship message.

I think trying to change this is more like wishful thinking then anything else, its is kind of obvious that the people censoring /r politic have invested interest to do so, the only solution we have is to unsubscribe and move on, like others have said, there is plenty of other sub we can go to, /r politics in my opinion have been bought and paid for by a governement agency or some idiot statist, just move on, nothing to see there.

[deleted]

Of course.

[deleted]

I used to be like that too, I think most people are, dont let me bring you down tho, its just sad in the end...

[deleted]

Dude, it's Reddit. 90% of the users on here are retarded high school students. There's no massive plot between the Mods and the owners of all people to "censor" a particular subreddit full of retarded high school students who are perceived to be crazier than most.

Nonsense.

I vote yes on this idea.

I see seven of the top nine items on this forum complaining about reddit censorship.

At what point do the complaints end up hurting the forum of opinion?

Ok. I make a subreddit. You post on my subreddit and it is not what I want, so I moderate your post. You want an option to take my subreddit away from me? Can you clarify this? Seems to me you are angry at moderation, not censorship.

[deleted]

Ok, I will agree with this if you can agree that this is an issue of bad moderating as opposed to censorship.

One thing leads to another.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I really hate how they apply shadowbans - it's the most passive aggressive piece of shit tactic I've ever seen. Oh.. you're not baaanned~ go ahead and post something (that no one will ever see). Really grinds my gears.

Once again we see people in power abuse there self appointed positions. We need to create a subreddit where we can voice our grievances and hopefully use those to our advantage to create a free and fair Reddit.com. It could be like the ACLU or Internal Affairs of Reddit. Those moderators caught abusing the rules of there sub Reddit could face banning of the sub Reddit they create.

As a developer I've been considering building something like this for quite a while now. I think we need an open-ended site where the aspects of control are transparent to the users that are subject to it. Those in charge are voted in or out by the mass. Those in charge have their administrative history in plain view for scrutiny. This way the system itself forces accountability by every member who is participating.

[deleted]

It shouldn't be too hard to fork Reddit. The codebase is open-source and a voting system for subreddits wouldn't be too hard to develop.

But, but, those liberal commie socialists Marxists must be stopped!

Reddit was a virtual hotbed of freedom, they must be stopped!

There was a large coup against the mods of /r/conspiracy here a while back. Without getting into details the mods that were ejected for fuckery were shortly reinstated and people were asked to not discuss the outcome.

Oh shit, I think I may have found myself in the wrong neighborhood. Please don't hurt me.

Stop posting to /politics, stop subscribing to it, etc...

Join /r/worldpolitics and /r/governmentoppression and have a discussion in non censored subreddits.

Watch /r/politics start holding mod elections.

aside from the obvious issues with default/frontpage subs, the first time i really notices the moderation filter was when /r/videos start banning political videos and a number of other big subs banned content relating to Occupy. They said, "if you want to post about occupy go to r/occupy". That exactly how the filter bubble works.

People come here to be exposed to new and important issues that they wouldn't necessarily have access to elsewhere, and then it's censored.

[deleted]

If your post gets moderated in a subreddit then don't post there again. It's that simple. Really it is.

Where do we go now?

i cannot even post

[deleted]

So, you are not a fan of moderation, huh?

[deleted]