It is a news sub and there is no way with the reach of what she did/helped with wouldn’t be of some importance to a global audience if something develops.
Explain how that works: anyone can post an article & moderators enforce rules.
Wouldn’t moderation actions deviating from the rules be easy to draw attention to?
Moreover, we don’t truly know online identities, and moderators could be anyone.
This looks like an invalid argument based on identity rather than a valid one based on a demonstrated pattern of moderation conduct.
And I pointed out the same risk of “bias”, which users could easily draw attention to, applies to any moderator.
Moreover, you brought up their speculative identity
the reach of what she did/helped with
and no pattern of moderator abuses or “bias” had been observed from that user.
A flimsy answer you can’t justify isn’t credible.
Back to the quote
Probably because there are some children are on there, if I had to guess. Also, conflict of interest. You really want a sex trafficker moderating the news?
What’s the conflict & what bearing on children do moderation capabilities of a subreddit on news articles have?
Your argument seems exceptionally flimsy.
They would moderate/suppress news posts and comments related to Epstein of course. And thus also trumpo and Co. And anything tangential. And Gaza, since they are a Mossad asset. And Russia.
Reddit modlogs are not public, so you would never know.
While them pearls won’t clutch themselves, is there any credible reason a convicted sex trafficker of minors can’t moderate a subreddit?
Because it’s a position that grants them authority and they’ve shown to be fucking scum.
Bias.
It is a news sub and there is no way with the reach of what she did/helped with wouldn’t be of some importance to a global audience if something develops.
Explain how that works: anyone can post an article & moderators enforce rules. Wouldn’t moderation actions deviating from the rules be easy to draw attention to? Moreover, we don’t truly know online identities, and moderators could be anyone. This looks like an invalid argument based on identity rather than a valid one based on a demonstrated pattern of moderation conduct.
The only bias I’m seeing here is speculative comments jumping to conclusions.
This is the question I answered. There’s nothing about the identity of the account in its context.
And I pointed out the same risk of “bias”, which users could easily draw attention to, applies to any moderator. Moreover, you brought up their speculative identity
and no pattern of moderator abuses or “bias” had been observed from that user.
A flimsy answer you can’t justify isn’t credible. Back to the quote
Because sex predators aren’t allowed onto the prisons wifi
Probably because there are some children are on there, if I had to guess. Also, conflict of interest. You really want a sex trafficker moderating the news?
What’s the conflict & what bearing on children do moderation capabilities of a subreddit on news articles have? Your argument seems exceptionally flimsy.
They would moderate/suppress news posts and comments related to Epstein of course. And thus also trumpo and Co. And anything tangential. And Gaza, since they are a Mossad asset. And Russia.
Reddit modlogs are not public, so you would never know.