In this case, the article is entirely US internal politics: it's a California representative saying something about a Trump adviser. The excuse maxwellhill uses is that since it mentions Russians then it has global relevance, but no actual Russian is involved in this piece of news, it's entirely about one rep's opinion of the situation.
maxwellhill is the effective head moderator of /r/worldnews, a subreddit he uses to push his leftist agenda. He was previously a moderator of /r/technology, where he fucked up badly enough to have the subreddit removed from the defaults.
Whenever I see anti-trump spam on that subreddit I always predict its him before looking at the submitter, and it usually is either him or 2 other accounts that always post these.
Yes, here. Mods abusing their own rules to push their ideology in subreddits that are ostensibly non-ideological is exactly what this subreddit is about. Censorship is the most common case, but not the only one.
I agree with you in part. You are correct, the mod has abused the rules of their subreddit and has posted some crap. Maybe this is a good opportunity to define what this subreddit is about in the rules? At the moment the scarcity of rules in this subreddit makes the content somewhat vague and more of a "this is why I was banned from X subreddit"
Given censorship is mentioned in the title of the subreddit, I feel it should be a part of the posts. Just a suggestion mate.
The rules are already in place, as well as a sticky clearly delineating what the subreddit is for and what we expect from posts. Quoting from it:
> Our goal here is exposing ideological censorship and similarly disingenuous modding practices.
There isn't a significant problem with people not getting what content should be posted here; the main one we have is people not making an effort to document their posts, but it's very manageable.
But what was the rule which was broken? What part of the post was breaking the rules? It is very unspecific and as against trump as I can be (as an Australian), I can't see the relevance for this sub without further clarification than the title gives.
> But what was the rule which was broken?
I posted a comment, which is the top comment in this thread, explaining that exactly. Did you somehow miss it?
11 comments
38 u/G_Petronius [OP] 28 Apr 2017 19:05
1 u/MyPostsAreCancer 13 May 2017 04:47
16 u/Neoxide 29 Apr 2017 02:07
15 u/yuris104 28 Apr 2017 23:54
6 u/lockhherup 03 May 2017 11:04
2 u/theaussiewhisperer † 29 Apr 2017 08:54
12 u/G_Petronius [OP] [M] 29 Apr 2017 10:37
2 u/theaussiewhisperer 29 Apr 2017 10:44
6 u/G_Petronius [OP] [M] 29 Apr 2017 10:49
-1 u/theaussiewhisperer 29 Apr 2017 10:56
8 u/G_Petronius [OP] 29 Apr 2017 11:12