I remember when the whole banned subreddits thing started. The official line is it would only be used for the worst of the worst subreddits, anything else would be 'quarantined', only the really unredeemable subs would get banned, and the process would not become expansive or abused. Those opposed to banning subs (including myself) said it was too easy for the process to become a common response, that while the admins had the best of intentions there would likely be a slippery slope in the future, and to keep that in check at least there should be an official multi-step process for banning a subreddit (with public input), and there should be a public list of banned subreddits with a stated justification for each one. Those calls were ignored. But that's what happened. Case in point- /r/gundeals. When Reddit enacted their anti-gun policy, gundeals was instantly banned. Only problem is *nobody actually sold any guns on /r/gundeals*, it was just a coupon and deal sub that posted links to other retailers who sold guns and gun accessories. And as anyone who knows guns knows, you can't sell guns over the Internet, you can only have them shipped to a local gun dealer so you can get a background check before picking it up. Not that the admins bothered to investigate any of this. /r/gundeals was banned, and it was only with a massive community outcry that the admins' attention was gotten and these facts were brought to light. As I see it, this is no different. Easy to ban, hard to do research first. Thing is, I get it. I used to run a sizable online community full of trolls and idiots. I know how tempting it is to 'lay down the law' and try to make the bad actors behave. But unfortunately online you have to choose between very strict moderation and tolerating the trolls. Reddit used to have a good balance- keep the trolls in the troll subs. Now it seems Reddit would rather push anything they don't like off the platform. I get it, especially having large corporate backers that want to monetize Reddit. But it's the wrong call. What Reddit really needs is a nonprofit foundation that can operate and monetize Reddit, purely for the benefit of the community. Sadly the VC owners won't do any such thing anytime soon, as there's no money to be made in that.

> Freedom of speech, especially speech you disagree with, is the most important thing America has. Unfortunately a lot of people seem to think 'stopping fascism' or whatever is best done by silencing fascists. Alex Jones / infowars / etc may be a bit crazy, but censoring their media channels does not stop their message, it turns their message into a martyr of sorts and further energizes their viewers. Same thing here.

Actually banning users from a sub solely because of the user's activity on a different sub is against mod guidelines. However Reddit Admins admit they don't proactively enforce this, they only take action if they get a bunch of reports/complaints about it. I suggest complaining to the admins about this.

Rule #1: Posts and comments we feel do not add to the discussion or which discriminate against any person or group will be deleted. Bam, your policy is now useless. Why did you delete that? I felt it didn't add to the discussion. End of story. Or Why did you delete that well thought out post advocating for border security? Because it advocates for action that overwhelmingly affects Mexicans and is thus discrimination. End of story. But for the sake of argument let's say we do what you suggest. How do we stop overly broad rules like the above? And if someone wants to complain about the moderatorship, who do they complain to? What is done about it? Do we set up a situation where Reddit admins regularly remove mod positions and install different mods? I don't think that's better.

You misunderstand me. I don't like biased moderation any more than you do. However I look at the alternative- how do we fix this? If moderators are *required* to be neutral, who enforces that neutrality? Do Reddit admins start stealing subreddits from overly biased mod teams? Who determines what is 'biased' and what isn't? Should any subreddit with a mainstream popular name (ie 'Politics') be held to a different standard than other subreddits? etc etc etc. For the record- I'm mostly liberal and I can't fucking stand the constant mindless anti-Trump circle jerk. I'm all for intelligent criticism but what we have now is TRUMP BAD HATE TRUMP GOOD SUPPORT TRUMP BAD so if you say something even slightly good about Trump you get downvoted to oblivion in short order. It's pathetic. We (liberals) are supposed to be more intelligent than this. However while I'd love to fix that, and I'd love for /r/politics to be a neutral place, I don't see any way of making that happen without seriously changing what Reddit is. If admins start stealing subreddits, that's a VERY slippery slope. And who gets those subreddits? How long before /r/news /r/technology /r/politics and every other 'major category name' have been taken over to present an Admin-curated view of things? No, that is a Bad Thing. I don't like censorship in subreddits, but I also value the independent authority of subreddit moderators. The side-effect of that is we will have some badly moderated subreddits. That's the cost of doing business, and I'm okay with it. So in short- I'm saying 'leave if you don't like it' because the same thing applies to all other subreddits (including conservative subreddits). I believe each subreddit owner should be able to run their sub as they see fit. I hope that clears up my position :)

Yes it is, see [Healthy Communities](https://www.reddit.com/help/healthycommunities/) When asked, Reddit admins have said they don't proactively enforce this rule, but if they get a lot of complaints about a particular sub doing this they may take action.

Curious- why is this a good thing?

...and it's banned. What the hell did you post that got the sub banned in under an hour?