As someone who has moderated some of the smaller (25k+) subs, there's a fine line between moderating to promote your agenda and moderating to clean up the trash. People who show up just to shit on the floor and blame you for the mess are not promoting an opinion they want considered, they're just making trouble for the lulz or trying to distract and discredit a position they can't otherwise refute. I learned from experience that sometimes you just have to play the bad guy and clean up the mess without worrying about "muh freedums!"
And sometimes you can't tell the users you didn't ban someone for simply being a dick but because you had to spend your day with the cops about this user and can't reveal details due to the ongoing investigation.
As much as I like transparency, sometimes you can't tell the users what happened and have to rely on other level headed moderators.
play the bad guy
play the bad guy
May I suggest, instead, ‘the heavy?’
But...I'm good at being the bad guy!
That I know! Having spent years watching you counseling people at /r/politics...
That's right, you were there for the consummate troll, redditman! I've lost count of all the duplicate accounts he's created over the years.
That goes back several years. The name that sticks, for me, is ‘RenéFonck,’ though the last time I was actually in touch was during the ‘ArthurLaumann’ era. Impressive how many separate groups scattered all over Reddit came to the same ‘disinformation agent’ conclusion about René née whatever. The last thing I heard from her, though it could easily have been disinfo, was that, serial entrepreneurship having left her at loose ends, she’d gleefully decided to go Galt, signing up for unemployment, Food Stamps, and whatever public assistance she could get. She and her son, still at home, were watching a lot of movies, cozy, and snug as bugs in rugs for at least the next however many months. Always a bomb-throwing Bircher gadfly, she genuinely seemed to think that was hilarious. Never heard from her personally again after that. I expect the knives came out for her when /r/politics went severely sideways in November, 2013.
The contrarian I miss most is ‘bjo3030.’ By now, I’m not expecting to hear back anymore. A hunch.
There is a big difference between the small subs (which I have moderated a couple of too) and /r/science which is a default sub. It even mentions in the article her removing the question "do you shave your bush?" which should be removed, and "mens rights" groups showing up in a discussion about sexual assault on campus, which while I'm not necessarily saying is the biggest issue ever (I hate that my first comment on this site is going to be one defending MRA's because I'm not one and don't want to paint myself into a corner) is a legitimate thing to bring up. It's an issue that has gotten at least some attention from the general public, at least partly because of the problematic ways it is defined and the accused are often railroaded and stripped of their due process rights. It seems that while it maybe should not dominate the discussion, it's not uncalled for to mention in a discussion of the subject. I think her statement about having to remove those comments gives some insight into her the mindset and definitely could be used to lend some credence to the idea that opinions are being removed because they (the mods) don't happen to agree with them, therefore don't even see their removal as a problem. Again, just wanting to state, that those opinions are not necessarily my opinions, just that I see how they fit into a discussion of campus sexual assault and that others have the right to hold and express them without being stifled.
Really though, the main reason I feel compelled to make my original statement is that I, and imagine a number of others here found this site while looking for an alternative to reddit because of it's growing problems. One of the biggest of those problems is the extirpation of any comments that could be considered "offensive" or go against a certain narrative, which is largely perpetrated by mods of the default subs, so I don't understand why the top promoted link on the site today is a puff piece that glorifies a default mod for censoring others.
Yeah, I have no sympathy for them. The MRA brigade will completely swarm a thread where there's even a hint that the topic might promote women's rights and derail the original topic completely. It's one thing if it was a civil (if passionate) discussion about balancing rights between genders but that's not how the MRA crowd handle it. I don't even have a problem with them behaving that way in their own space (and they have several subs dedicated to the topic), but they raid other subs whenever they see the flag go up.
/r/science has a very targeted mission which they're very explicit about. Derailing it with drama is simply not something they should have to put up with regardless of free speech issues. If you want unrestrained free speech there's always voat, but according to the admins here people who show up just to try to troll for reactions are not going to be welcome.
It's tough to identify the line between free speech and trolling. What the MRA brigade does is not promote free speech, they're trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with them. I have absolutely no problem with what the article says she's been doing to keep that under control.
It’s /r/science. Not every forum is an open mic night at the local bar. Even open mics have limits, for pity’s sake.
Say someone needs, for whatever personal reasons, to express their sense that the real problem with rape is how hard it can be for accused rapists. Does that necessarily belong at /r/earthporn? Or /r/askhistorians? More the therapist’s couch, I’d say.
Let’s set aside the obvious, unconscious, hateful pathos driving so many misogynistic troll brigades at Reddit. There are places meant for things other than every person’s every opinion. Some removals are curation, not censorship.