Self-censorship on Reddit

Jason Brown5 said:The honest truth. ☕

Well, it’s perfectly obvious that this is just an example—nothing more, nothing less. People. Who shouldn't be a moderator? Honestly, that's a question worth debating—though I suspect most people would just point fingers blindly.

Just wondering what's going on. That person. He behaves exactly like most of the other users on this Reddit thread—though, I suppose, credit and glory go to the few exceptions.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. ☕

It’s just as critical to note that this individual actually started off by posting something perfectly reasonable—only to have Kmečko McKmečkić launch into a completely hysterical, unhinged attack against them. 😍

Yes. This individual. She didn't even bother to answer—she just chose silence—and honestly, Kmečko got exactly what was coming to him with that massive penalty; if he hadn't, there would have been an absolute uproar.

But then—if the moderator decides to fight fire with fire and hits back just as hard—suddenly everyone starts wailing again.

Honestly, you all need to get on the same page regarding what kind of community you actually want this Reddit to be. ☕ So, here we are—on a Reddit thread where you can basically go to war with the moderators without any hope of a comeback. It’s legitimate, I suppose. But honestly? Expecting anyone to actually pull that off is a stretch. It’s tough to make it stick.

Where on earth did you get the idea that everyone just wants to pick fights with the moderators?
Why assume user-mod interactions have to be a battlefield by default? I don't have an issue even with the people who handed me warnings. I’m not throwing them a birthday party, but I’m not looking for a fight on Reddit either.

Kyle Nelson2 said:Mind Your own business

But that’s exactly my business—I'm the one facing the bans here.
Why on earth would I be getting flagged for trolling?
And what does that even mean in this context? Trolling like some kid in a Brooklyn basement? What's the actual point?

Maria Barnes said: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.

I don't want to sit here and count them all by hand, but do you have any idea roughly how many moderators are running this Reddit?

-Stipe

I guess you skipped over the reply because there aren't any official final numbers tallied up somewhere, and since you don't have a running total either, I’ll just estimate and round it up to 100. Honestly, even a rough scale is enough to get the point across.

So, there are, let's say, about a hundred moderators. Everyone has the power to delete, close threads, issue warnings, hand out bans, and all that stuff.

Out of those hundred mods, about 50% of all complaints regarding bans for half of the posts—and actually, basically ALL the bans on the entire Reddit—are tied back to the actions of just ONE single moderator.
It’s really hard for me to wrap my head around a scenario where one guy, in just one subreddit, carries as much weight as the other 99 combined. It feels... I don't know, maybe a little (okay, a lot) excessive, right?

I totally get that different subreddits operate differently, and that mods vary too, but I really feel like an imbalance this huge points to a specific underlying problem.
In my opinion, having things tilted that heavily feels unjustifiable under any kind of reasonable scrutiny.

When it comes to how moderation actually works in practice, the criteria used for these actions often seem more than just questionable—they're downright sketchy. I know this firsthand because I read and participate in those discussions, and I've seen unpopular opinions getting punished simply because they are unpopular, and for no other reason at all. Plus, the principles you were asking about in the post quoted above are often impossible to even explain or define. This leads to a kind of "self-censorship" where you basically have to guess how much truth or how many "normal" perspectives you can actually share. And we can see what a "normal perspective" means—like with the whole COVID topic—if someone didn't want to believe certain things earlier but explained themselves politely, they still got hit.

I really don't think that's right. That specific example isn't even the main point; it's more about the general situation, because similar things are happening in other threads, which is pretty obvious if you look at the ratios I mentioned.

-Stipe

briskjackal5, move the politics mods somewhere else and put whoever else in charge to handle it... everyone will end up with a 99% complaint rate against them. Because it's POLITICS. Regardless of who's moderating, that section has always been a total war zone, ever since back in the day 🐔

Right now, I'm practicing heavy self-censorship by actively dodging one specific moderator—basically avoiding any thread they touch. Doesn't matter who it is.😁

briskjackal5 said:I guess you skipped over the reply because there aren't any official final numbers tallied up somewhere, and since you don't have a running total either, I’ll just estimate and round it up to 100. Honestly, even a rough scale is enough to get the point across.

So, there are, let's say, about a hundred moderators. Everyone has the power to delete, close threads, issue warnings, hand out bans, and all that stuff.

Out of those hundred mods, about 50% of all complaints regarding bans for half of the posts—and actually, basically ALL the bans on the entire Reddit—are tied back to the actions of just ONE single moderator.
It’s really hard for me to wrap my head around a scenario where one guy, in just one subreddit, carries as much weight as the other 99 combined. It feels... I don't know, maybe a little (okay, a lot) excessive, right?

I totally get that different subreddits operate differently, and that mods vary too, but I really feel like an imbalance this huge points to a specific underlying problem.
In my opinion, having things tilted that heavily feels unjustifiable under any kind of reasonable scrutiny.

When it comes to how moderation actually works in practice, the criteria used for these actions often seem more than just questionable—they're downright sketchy. I know this firsthand because I read and participate in those discussions, and I've seen unpopular opinions getting punished simply because they are unpopular, and for no other reason at all. Plus, the principles you were asking about in the post quoted above are often impossible to even explain or define. This leads to a kind of "self-censorship" where you basically have to guess how much truth or how many "normal" perspectives you can actually share. And we can see what a "normal perspective" means—like with the whole COVID topic—if someone didn't want to believe certain things earlier but explained themselves politely, they still got hit.

I really don't think that's right. That specific example isn't even the main point; it's more about the general situation, because similar things are happening in other threads, which is pretty obvious if you look at the ratios I mentioned.

-Stipe

+

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.

From the opening post😉

Maria Barnes said:From the opening post😉

We’re all too terrified to even type his name out loud; honestly, the level of self-censorship we're seeing lately is just getting ridiculous.

hiddeneagle98 said:We’re all too terrified to even type his name out loud; honestly, the level of self-censorship we're seeing lately is just getting ridiculous.

Voldemort Reddit

In theory, everything sounds wonderful, but the reality on the ground is a completely different story. It would be such a relief if the platform's moderation policy were actually 100% neutral, treating trolls from all sides with the same level of scrutiny instead of protecting the same handful of people for years... I won't go naming names, because we all know exactly who they are, whether they happen to be bots or just some regular losers...

Self-censorship is totally fine as long as the mods stay neutral and actually do their job checking the posts.

Lately, I’ve been getting insulted so many different ways that I honestly feel like a doormat. And man, when I think about all the ridiculous nonsense I've had to swallow just to keep things chill... I probably would've ended up getting banned too if I'd actually fired back at some of these trolls right now...

silentfalcon3 said:In theory, everything sounds wonderful, but the reality on the ground is a completely different story. It would be such a relief if the platform's moderation policy were actually 100% neutral, treating trolls from all sides with the same level of scrutiny instead of protecting the same handful of people for years... I won't go naming names, because we all know exactly who they are, whether they happen to be bots or just some regular losers...

I actually went to them specifically because of the blatant bias and the way they let certain troll masters run wild—I requested a partial ban in the Politics sub-forum, which, in my opinion, is the absolute peak of self-censorship 😬 Then, when I asked to have that partial ban lifted after a full year had passed, they shot me down, which is quite clearly the ultimate form of censorship 😬