It depends on what you mean by "discussion". There are many actions people call "discussion" that end up being disruptive and toxic to the community housing that action.
What do you mean by moderating on Reddit being frustrating? Are you trying to argue counter to observable fact?
Maybe someone else can help me out here: there is a site somewhere (I can’t recall the name) that mirrors Reddit and keeps track of what content gets deleted. If you saw that, you would have to agree “counter to observable fact” is not an accurate description of things that are removed or censored. The moderation is incredibly politically and ideologically driven.
The two points they bring up are the rules about who can post, and how things are heavily one-sided.
To the first point, there are automod rules setup to prevent brigading that end up preventing lurkers from making their first contribution. This may be what they've experienced.
To the second point, what are observable facts that are not arguable? Isn't the whole point of science that everything can and should be arguable as long as you follow the method?
Comments
It depends on what you mean by "discussion". There are many actions people call "discussion" that end up being disruptive and toxic to the community housing that action.
What do you mean by moderating on Reddit being frustrating? Are you trying to argue counter to observable fact?
Maybe someone else can help me out here: there is a site somewhere (I can’t recall the name) that mirrors Reddit and keeps track of what content gets deleted. If you saw that, you would have to agree “counter to observable fact” is not an accurate description of things that are removed or censored. The moderation is incredibly politically and ideologically driven.
https://www.reveddit.com is probably the most popular
there is also
https://www.unddit.com
That’s it. Thanks!
The two points they bring up are the rules about who can post, and how things are heavily one-sided.
To the first point, there are automod rules setup to prevent brigading that end up preventing lurkers from making their first contribution. This may be what they've experienced.
To the second point, what are observable facts that are not arguable? Isn't the whole point of science that everything can and should be arguable as long as you follow the method?
I sense a political reply coming...
I enjoyed the self-reference here