Self-censorship on Reddit

A few solid quotes;

Never waste your breath trying to reason with someone who is convinced they’re infallible!

When a wise man hits a wall, he simply admits, "I don't understand." But the fools—the ones lacking any real depth—are too embarrassed by their own ignorance. Instead, they just shut up, missing out on the very wisdom a single question could have provided.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quo...Herbert?page=3

I love that series (the father's part, not the son's).
The truth is always staring you in the face—it’s really just a matter of how much you actually want to see it.

Rachel Richardson said:Enough.

In principle, I try to adapt my vocabulary to the people I’m speaking with—which sometimes involves temporarily switching off certain higher brain functions.
You say something once, then perhaps repeat it if the person fails to grasp it—but to what end?
Occasionally, an answer is masked within a more nuanced thought, in the hope that there might be at least a glimmer of intelligence on the other side.

Genuine, high-quality discussions are in short supply. Too many people mistake deep analysis for mere bickering.
Or they just latch onto trolls.
And talking to walls isn't exactly encouraging.

Rachel Jones8 is right regarding the openness of the forum. Personally, I’ve seen instances where someone complained because "some newcomers" were chatting in their thread during the evening.
I don't believe the moderators get involved in those specific threads (at least not in the ones I've seen), but even so, it feels unnatural to me when new people are explicitly pushed away from certain topics.

There are far too many insecure, frustrated individuals using this forum as an emotional pressure valve. Perhaps it's a mirror of society—I couldn't say—but it creates a toxic environment.
If people aren't valued, they leave.
That should be obvious to everyone.

Let's say you're a moderator for a sub-forum filled with these kinds of frustrated, toxic users. What would you actually do?

Maria Barnes said:Let's say you're a moderator for a sub-forum filled with these kinds of frustrated, toxic users. What would you actually do?

That’s a fair question.
As a regular user here, my approach has been—perhaps a bit naively—to actually try and help these people. You talk to them, offer some advice, and try to show a bit of empathy.
The goal is to find an outlet for that energy—because, frankly, they usually have plenty of it. You try to redirect it toward something productive, essentially attempting to make their time spent here worthwhile.
In most instances, though, it hasn't worked.
It is incredibly difficult to help someone who isn't looking for help.

A moderator, however, has a broader toolkit at their disposal.
The key is to address the behavior, not attack the individual. The priority is maintaining a healthy atmosphere.

First, you attempt dialogue—trying to understand the root cause, solving the issue, or perhaps even engaging the community in a discussion to de-escalate things.
If that fails, then comes the next step;

*You open a thread regarding Warnings and Sanctions. You clearly state what the issue is, what is happening, and what disciplinary actions are being considered.
Transparency is vital.
Moderators typically handle a mountain of issues that most users aren't even aware of (and they rarely get any credit for it).

*The most common penalty for these types of users is a ban from participating in specific threads where their problematic behavior occurs.
A public list is then maintained on the subreddit, detailing those specific topics and the users prohibited from posting in them.
These bans are usually temporary.

The entire process remains transparent—the individual is given a chance, and the outcome rests entirely on their own shoulders. The list of restricted topics grows or shrinks accordingly.
Insults and harassment are non-negotiable.

I really like the idea of offering guidance; I believe clear communication between a mod and the community is essential.

To sum it up: a transparent attempt at helping, facilitating change, and isolating bad behavior—ideally with as much community support as possible.

Rachel Jones8 said:My version of self-censorship is basically just making sure I follow the Reddit rules to a T—trying to be polite, respectful, and not offend anyone, you know?
But honestly, I still keep getting flagged. And I don't even get why. From where I'm sitting, it feels like people just can't handle a new face on a thread... so they slap a few warnings on you just to push you out, even if you haven't done anything wrong.
The "inner circle" just wants to stay in their own little bubble. If someone new shows up with a slightly different perspective—even if they're following all the rules and being totally chill—they get booted.
It’s happened to me in several different subreddits; the old-timers basically team up with the moderators to kick you off the thread.
And look, this isn't even about heavy stuff like politics, religion, or crazy conspiracy theories... it's not even one of those heated debates where everyone is yelling because nobody actually knows what they're talking about.
It’s about the "trivial" everyday stuff. Like, if you say, "Hey, I really don't like it when random dogs lick me or leave hair on my clothes," suddenly everyone jumps down your throat. They claim you hate animals or whatever, and then boom—you get a warning. Meanwhile, they’ll spend hours debating which lint roller is best or how to scrub hair off a sofa, but the second you set a boundary, they act like you're the villain.
If anyone outside the "clique" complains about anything, they get shut down, and usually with a strike right after.
Same thing with fireworks. Even if you're saying, "Man, I feel bad for the dogs, these things are awful and scary for all of us," but then you mention that they're legally allowed from date X to date Y... they immediately attack you, acting like you're actually rooting for people to scare pets.
Basically, they twist everything you say and accuse you of things you never even mentioned. Once you realize they just don't want you there, you see that nothing you write will ever be okay.
At that point, you just walk away. Even though it would actually be useful for them to hear different perspectives, they just refuse to listen.
So they drive people away. It's the same story everywhere else, too.
And it’s not great. People just can't handle someone expressing a simple opinion or an impression, as long as they aren't trying to prove some impossible theory.
You have an opinion, and I shouldn't have to defend it. If something bothers me, it bothers me. Why is it so hard to respect that without feeling personally attacked? If I don't want your dog sniffing or licking me, is that really such a big deal?
Does that seriously mean I hate dogs, or animals in general, or people who own pets? That's how they make it seem. They pin all these false labels on you until you just lose the desire to have a decent conversation, share a suggestion, or offer some constructive criticism.🕺

That happened in the Tourism thread, and both you and I experienced it firsthand. Thankfully, since the moderators changed, that isn't an issue anymore; the new moderators on the Tourism thread are absolute legends.

It’s happening everywhere, not just there.
It was even explicitly stated that the sub-forum was strictly for landlords and everyone else should stay quiet.
But then the exact same thing happened in the pets section... where the moderator kept insisting that if you don't own a dog, you shouldn't be posting. And the same goes for the housing thread about rentals—supposedly only people who aren't renting or renting out apartments should be talking.
You could practically get banned just for saying "today is Thursday" when you were actually supposed to say "tomorrow is Friday."
In the parenting section, one of the mods was handing out bans left and right whenever someone dared to disagree with his personal views.
Things are definitely better in the tourism section now.
I'm with you that the food section is fine, but... honestly, I've grown to hate posting in those threads because of that one moderator you praised. He deleted one of my posts and used some really nasty insults against me as the reason. To make matters worse, he wouldn't even let the post stay visible so that I—or anyone else—could see what was supposedly so terrible about it.

I actually got banned for being "insulting" just because I called some of those mods useless hens

Is calling someone a hen really an insult?

Larry Walker24 said:I actually got banned for being "insulting" just because I called some of those mods useless hens

Is calling someone a hen really an insult?

Well, it depends on how you say it. If you’re just joking around, it's fine. But if you're genuinely trying to be mean—like, actually insulting them—then it's not okay. It's kind of like me calling you a dork. In certain contexts, it's just banter, but in others, it could definitely sting.

Christian Myers said:Well, it depends on how you say it. If you’re just joking around, it's fine. But if you're genuinely trying to be mean—like, actually insulting them—then it's not okay. It's kind of like me calling you a dork. In certain contexts, it's just banter, but in others, it could definitely sting.

So basically, it's fine if they call themselves chickens, but if someone else calls them chickens, then it's an insult. 🙄🙄🙄

Pretty much. If someone calls you an idiot or a jerk, it really just depends on who’s saying it, how they say it, and obviously the context.
(plus whatever was said before)

Rachel Jones8 said:It’s happening everywhere, not just there.
It was even explicitly stated that the sub-forum was strictly for landlords and everyone else should stay quiet.
But then the exact same thing happened in the pets section... where the moderator kept insisting that if you don't own a dog, you shouldn't be posting. And the same goes for the housing thread about rentals—supposedly only people who aren't renting or renting out apartments should be talking.
You could practically get banned just for saying "today is Thursday" when you were actually supposed to say "tomorrow is Friday."
In the parenting section, one of the mods was handing out bans left and right whenever someone dared to disagree with his personal views.
Things are definitely better in the tourism section now.
I'm with you that the food section is fine, but... honestly, I've grown to hate posting in those threads because of that one moderator you praised. He deleted one of my posts and used some really nasty insults against me as the reason. To make matters worse, he wouldn't even let the post stay visible so that I—or anyone else—could see what was supposedly so terrible about it.

No one is ever going to please everyone, right? 😁 It’s just like being at work; if you're the boss and you try to be fair and decent, there will always be someone out there looking for a reason to hate you.

Everything checks out. But honestly, hating someone for no reason just seems kind of pathetic.
I don't even buy into that. (At least not here.)
Instead, I lean more towards the idea that everyone gets it wrong. Even though my post was totally harmless, maybe he read something between the lines? Who knows?
But look, to avoid this whole mess, if you're going to warn, delete, or ban someone,
don't just hide the post in question.
It isn't fair, it isn't right, and it certainly isn't decent.
And just to address your comparison—if he’s the boss... which he is...
...that would imply that *I'm* the one who hates him.
Which just isn't true.
If anything, it's the other way around; the boss might actually hate me, though why? Beats me.

Maria Barnes said:I've heard this sentiment in several places, so let's address it.

What exactly do you think won't fly? To what extent does this actually stop you from writing freely?

If you aren't breaking the basic rules we all agreed to during registration—like no insults, no harassment, no malice—then you shouldn't feel restricted at all.

If there is an issue, we will work to fix it.

In the meantime, please keep political topics aside. Politics is a breeding ground for endless conflict. It's true: we do lean in a bit harder there because of past experiences. Things spiral into extremes and chaos too fast, and the decent users end up leaving. So, just don't bring politics here. There will be other times. Reddit isn't a political forum; it's a general interest site, and politics is just one tiny segment.

Personally, I think a little bit of "self-censorship" is totally normal whenever you're socializing.
Some of our impulses just don't really fit with how society works, and the reactions from people (or certain groups) show us that. So, we adapt.

That in itself isn't really "good" or "bad" until you look at the specific situation.
Generally speaking, it's often just a normal, even desirable, process.

I don't think that should apply to holding back your ideas from others, though. But honestly, I don't think anyone should be getting worked up over someone thinking an Audi is better than a Passat or an Octavia, or that Hajduk is better than Dinamo, or that Kant is overrated. And I don't think self-censorship is even that common in those cases.
If it is happening somewhere, maybe the mods are tripping? I haven't noticed anything like that myself. Even the anti-vaxxers have been sharing their "opinions" for years. 😁

On the flip side, though, it's super hard to just push political stuff aside.

Lately, you've had situations where people write stuff starting with "the fact is," and they state things that are flat-out wrong or just badly interpreted, and that gets allowed to slide. Meanwhile, having a cultured, rational conversation to correct them actually gets penalized. Discussions about material stuff—things where you can actually reach a consensus—get shut down and punished.
It seems to me that acting like that is exactly how you drift into extremism; that *is* the extreme. It moves away from constructive, sensible talk and just scatters the "normal crew."

Sure, that can technically "work" that way, but I really don't think it's a great foundation or a good direction to go in.

-Steve

Rachel Jones8 said:But how else are you supposed to feel when your posts get nuked for supposedly
trolling or flame wars or whatever,
when you know damn well you didn't do any of that?
Or how do you feel when you suddenly get hit with 130 points, a ban, or a warning, and you have zero clue what was actually wrong with your posts, even though you followed the rules?
And so on, and so forth.
In my opinion, just because someone finds a post tedious doesn't mean they should get flagged or anything. ...Nobody's forcing anyone to read boring or annoying posts.
Just skip them.

She isn't even a moderator anymore 😁

Maria Barnes said:I've heard this sentiment in several places, so let's address it.

What exactly do you think won't fly? To what extent does this actually stop you from writing freely?

If you aren't breaking the basic rules we all agreed to during registration—like no insults, no harassment, no malice—then you shouldn't feel restricted at all.

If there is an issue, we will work to fix it.

In the meantime, please keep political topics aside. Politics is a breeding ground for endless conflict. It's true: we do lean in a bit harder there because of past experiences. Things spiral into extremes and chaos too fast, and the decent users end up leaving. So, just don't bring politics here. There will be other times. Reddit isn't a political forum; it's a general interest site, and politics is just one tiny segment.

I don't have an issue with self-censorship; I don't feel the need to dump my daily dose of bile onto Reddit just to force myself to filter it. But since you asked, it's the moderators suppressing free speech, not self-censorship.
If my post gets deleted and they can't even take two seconds to send a quick message—something they could easily pre-write and send whenever needed—then it's pretty obvious this site doesn't value me as a user. It makes me wonder why I should bother posting high-quality content or recipes in the food section to drive your traffic. Those recipes are easy to Google anyway, and maybe someone sees them and decides to sign up and join the conversation, but why do all that if I don't even get a shred of respect as a user?

I love forums; I'm a member of quite a few that are mostly topic-specific. I've never had issues with moderators on any of those sites—they're practically invisible. On Reddit, however, moderation is viewed differently, and the mods often push their will aggressively. And it isn't just about the official policy, though that's what people complain about most.

stormylynx4 said:I don't have an issue with self-censorship; I don't feel the need to dump my daily dose of bile onto Reddit just to force myself to filter it. But since you asked, it's the moderators suppressing free speech, not self-censorship.
If my post gets deleted and they can't even take two seconds to send a quick message—something they could easily pre-write and send whenever needed—then it's pretty obvious this site doesn't value me as a user. It makes me wonder why I should bother posting high-quality content or recipes in the food section to drive your traffic. Those recipes are easy to Google anyway, and maybe someone sees them and decides to sign up and join the conversation, but why do all that if I don't even get a shred of respect as a user?

I love forums; I'm a member of quite a few that are mostly topic-specific. I've never had issues with moderators on any of those sites—they're practically invisible. On Reddit, however, moderation is viewed differently, and the mods often push their will aggressively. And it isn't just about the official policy, though that's what people complain about most.

Can you expand on that comparison between how things are moderated here versus elsewhere?

briskjackal5 said:Personally, I think a little bit of "self-censorship" is totally normal whenever you're socializing.
Some of our impulses just don't really fit with how society works, and the reactions from people (or certain groups) show us that. So, we adapt.

That in itself isn't really "good" or "bad" until you look at the specific situation.
Generally speaking, it's often just a normal, even desirable, process.

I don't think that should apply to holding back your ideas from others, though. But honestly, I don't think anyone should be getting worked up over someone thinking an Audi is better than a Passat or an Octavia, or that Hajduk is better than Dinamo, or that Kant is overrated. And I don't think self-censorship is even that common in those cases.
If it is happening somewhere, maybe the mods are tripping? I haven't noticed anything like that myself. Even the anti-vaxxers have been sharing their "opinions" for years. 😁

On the flip side, though, it's super hard to just push political stuff aside.

Lately, you've had situations where people write stuff starting with "the fact is," and they state things that are flat-out wrong or just badly interpreted, and that gets allowed to slide. Meanwhile, having a cultured, rational conversation to correct them actually gets penalized. Discussions about material stuff—things where you can actually reach a consensus—get shut down and punished.
It seems to me that acting like that is exactly how you drift into extremism; that *is* the extreme. It moves away from constructive, sensible talk and just scatters the "normal crew."

Sure, that can technically "work" that way, but I really don't think it's a great foundation or a good direction to go in.

-Steve

Can you give me some actual examples? There’s no need to name specific moderators right now. We’re talking about moderation principles and how they're applied in practice.

Maria Barnes said:Can you expand on that comparison between how things are moderated here versus elsewhere?

On other forums, you don't really see this dogmatic obsession with "trolling"; instead, there’s usually a very clear, logical reason behind why someone gets banned... But here on Reddit... Trolling... it’s such a peculiar phenomenon, isn't it? One moment you're having a perfectly civil conversation about something meaningful, and the next, someone decides to throw a digital wrench into the gears just for the sake of seeing things spin out of control... It really makes you wonder about the psychology behind it all. Some people seem to thrive on that friction, seeking out a reaction like they're hunting for sport... It can be quite exhausting if you let it get to you, though I suppose there is a certain chaotic charm to the madness if you view it from a distance... The most frequent reason for getting banned usually boils down to the moderator’s personal perspective and their specific worldview regarding a given topic. In practice, this means posts get flagged simply because they are similar to the rest of the discussion but don't align with the moderator's particular narrative... and I suspect that applies to the platform owners as well. They end up being sanctioned because... Trolling... it’s such an interesting phenomenon when you really stop to think about it... how people just dive headfirst into the digital fray for no reason other than to stir the pot...The one who fits the description simply isn't there. On other sites, like Reddit, people actually try to establish a uniform standard through actual dialogue... It’s about finding common ground. If you can't find a different way to do it, you could at least aim for some level of symmetry; having two left-leaning and two right-leaning moderators would bring the total to four. Unless, of course, my colleague is referring to those extremist corners of the internet, like Stormfront or those radical activist boards...

Matthew Kim88 said:She isn't even a moderator anymore 😁

Both people mentioned in that quoted post are still moderators.

stormylynx4 said:I don't have an issue with self-censorship; I don't feel the need to dump my daily dose of bile onto Reddit just to force myself to filter it. But since you asked, it's the moderators suppressing free speech, not self-censorship.
If my post gets deleted and they can't even take two seconds to send a quick message—something they could easily pre-write and send whenever needed—then it's pretty obvious this site doesn't value me as a user. It makes me wonder why I should bother posting high-quality content or recipes in the food section to drive your traffic. Those recipes are easy to Google anyway, and maybe someone sees them and decides to sign up and join the conversation, but why do all that if I don't even get a shred of respect as a user?

I love forums; I'm a member of quite a few that are mostly topic-specific. I've never had issues with moderators on any of those sites—they're practically invisible. On Reddit, however, moderation is viewed differently, and the mods often push their will aggressively. And it isn't just about the official policy, though that's what people complain about most.

Maria Barnes said:Can you expand on that comparison between how things are moderated here versus elsewhere?

I can weigh in here—mostly because I’ve spent a fair amount of time lurking and posting on various forums myself. It’s common sense, really: smaller communities naturally dodge a lot of the headaches that plague the big ones. On most international forums, what stormylynx4 is saying holds true—though, if we're being honest, the underlying reasons are entirely different:

There simply isn't a subforum for this—not one that allows us to endlessly nitpick over every single individual card.

Short bans are incredibly rare around here—it’s more like an all-or-nothing policy. The rules are pretty straightforward: you're expected to have read them, and if you break them, a ban means a permanent ban. No mercy, no second chances. I actually experienced this firsthand on one of the very first international forums I ever joined; I got hit with a permanent ban for something that wouldn't even earn you 45 points on a strict subreddit. Surprisingly enough, offering a sincere apology through a burner account actually worked to get me back in, but the underlying principle remains clear—there's no room for error.

Look, it’s obvious enough that there are administrators pulling the strings behind the scenes, managing both the backend and the moderation teams. But honestly? It’s impossible to ignore when you see the exact same individual popping up—like, literally 150 times—acting bewildered and asking why they got banned. It's absurd. At that point, you have to wonder if the issue lies with the moderator themselves—in which case, maybe the mod should be the one getting removed—or, in the absolute worst-case scenario, the user is headed for the exit once they hit that "three strikes and you're out" rule. It's a cycle that just doesn't make sense.

My apologies to the fellow user—and colleague—whose complaint was singled out for being at the top of the pile. On most other forums, something like this would be absolutely impossible: I’ve been spending far too much time lately lurking on Reddit—mostly just observing the chaos—but I finally decided to weigh in on this particular thread regarding the recent legal developments. It’s quite a mess, honestly. The discussion seems to be spiraling around whether our current judicial system can actually hold anyone accountable, or if we're just watching a choreographed dance of bureaucracy. There’s a lot of talk about how the Prosecutor is handling these cases, and frankly, it feels like we're seeing a massive wave of self-censorship from the media outlets that should be shouting from the rooftops instead. One user, Maria Barnes, was making some rather pointed observations about the lack of transparency, which I find hard to argue against—though she does tend to get a bit carried away with her theories. Then you have someone like Gerald Chavez7, who seems convinced that everything is fine as long as the paperwork looks correct. It's a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. I find myself stuck between two extremes here: the people who think every minor error is a grand conspiracy, and those who believe the system is an infallible machine. Neither side is particularly convincing. The truth, as usual, is likely buried somewhere in the middle, obscured by political maneuvering and a general lack of public interest. It’s exhausting to follow, really—almost as exhausting as trying to keep up with the endless debates over sports or whatever else is trending today—but one can't help but watch the slow-motion train wreck unfold.

Either the ex-mod is going to step up and act like a legitimate member of this Reddit community within the next 24 hours—or, the actual moderator needs to start doing their job. I mean, seriously—either they fix the constant stream of insults and targeted attacks from that one specific user (who is usually the culprit anyway), or we’re stuck with this endless, toxic cycle where everyone is perpetually complaining. It’s bad enough as it is; there's no need to let that "everyone is miserable" atmosphere take root.

The sheer volume of complaints is irrelevant—which is exactly why they kicked them out of the room ages ago. It doesn't matter if you're looking at three filings a month, thirty, or thirty thousand. What actually matters is whether those claims hold water. At the end of the day, everyone sitting in a prison cell is technically innocent until proven otherwise.

Jason Brown5 said:I can weigh in here—mostly because I’ve spent a fair amount of time lurking and posting on various forums myself. It’s common sense, really: smaller communities naturally dodge a lot of the headaches that plague the big ones. On most international forums, what stormylynx4 is saying holds true—though, if we're being honest, the underlying reasons are entirely different:

There simply isn't a subforum for this—not one that allows us to endlessly nitpick over every single individual card.

Short bans are incredibly rare around here—it’s more like an all-or-nothing policy. The rules are pretty straightforward: you're expected to have read them, and if you break them, a ban means a permanent ban. No mercy, no second chances. I actually experienced this firsthand on one of the very first international forums I ever joined; I got hit with a permanent ban for something that wouldn't even earn you 45 points on a strict subreddit. Surprisingly enough, offering a sincere apology through a burner account actually worked to get me back in, but the underlying principle remains clear—there's no room for error.

Look, it’s obvious enough that there are administrators pulling the strings behind the scenes, managing both the backend and the moderation teams. But honestly? It’s impossible to ignore when you see the exact same individual popping up—like, literally 150 times—acting bewildered and asking why they got banned. It's absurd. At that point, you have to wonder if the issue lies with the moderator themselves—in which case, maybe the mod should be the one getting removed—or, in the absolute worst-case scenario, the user is headed for the exit once they hit that "three strikes and you're out" rule. It's a cycle that just doesn't make sense.

My apologies to the fellow user—and colleague—whose complaint was singled out for being at the top of the pile. On most other forums, something like this would be absolutely impossible: I’ve been spending far too much time lately lurking on Reddit—mostly just observing the chaos—but I finally decided to weigh in on this particular thread regarding the recent legal developments. It’s quite a mess, honestly. The discussion seems to be spiraling around whether our current judicial system can actually hold anyone accountable, or if we're just watching a choreographed dance of bureaucracy. There’s a lot of talk about how the Prosecutor is handling these cases, and frankly, it feels like we're seeing a massive wave of self-censorship from the media outlets that should be shouting from the rooftops instead. One user, Maria Barnes, was making some rather pointed observations about the lack of transparency, which I find hard to argue against—though she does tend to get a bit carried away with her theories. Then you have someone like Gerald Chavez7, who seems convinced that everything is fine as long as the paperwork looks correct. It's a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. I find myself stuck between two extremes here: the people who think every minor error is a grand conspiracy, and those who believe the system is an infallible machine. Neither side is particularly convincing. The truth, as usual, is likely buried somewhere in the middle, obscured by political maneuvering and a general lack of public interest. It’s exhausting to follow, really—almost as exhausting as trying to keep up with the endless debates over sports or whatever else is trending today—but one can't help but watch the slow-motion train wreck unfold.

Either the ex-mod is going to step up and act like a legitimate member of this Reddit community within the next 24 hours—or, the actual moderator needs to start doing their job. I mean, seriously—either they fix the constant stream of insults and targeted attacks from that one specific user (who is usually the culprit anyway), or we’re stuck with this endless, toxic cycle where everyone is perpetually complaining. It’s bad enough as it is; there's no need to let that "everyone is miserable" atmosphere take root.

The sheer volume of complaints is irrelevant—which is exactly why they kicked them out of the room ages ago. It doesn't matter if you're looking at three filings a month, thirty, or thirty thousand. What actually matters is whether those claims hold water. At the end of the day, everyone sitting in a prison cell is technically innocent until proven otherwise.

Just a side note: you are a walking disaster of a cloned moderator, existing solely to hand out bans and warnings just to stifle any chance of an appeal. Complaining about a clone is pretty much pointless anyway.
It's like complaining to a bot. You're just shouting into the void.

Honestly, the mere existence of your profile—and sadly, you aren't the only one—is living proof of the terrible moderation on Reddit, which has completely lost its way...