Yes, but some of them aren't. There are instances of people being banned because they participated in another sub. Instances of people being banned for criticizing Israel. It wouldn't be so much of an issue if it was like back in the day where there were a thousand independent boards. But Reddit killed that.
You get a flood of people praising Hitler in your subreddit. 1000 per day You have two buttons in front of you: ban individual user (ban form takes 30 seconds minimum to load and fill out), and ban all from /HitlerLovers. Which do you pick.
That's not what happened with r/conspiracy users getting banned in other forums. Yeah I guess it has its place but that feature has been mostly misused from what I've seen.
You're also a mod of six different forums. Do you wait until each one gets targeted by /HitlerLovers before configuring the bot to ban them or do you just leave off the filter from the bot and have it ban them everywhere it has power to?
howunfortunate · · focus · HN ↗
I'd wager the vast majority of internet censorship is within platform, like that done by Reddit mods.
The most egregious example I've seen in my lifetime was when old Twitter decided to censor a NYPost article, down to blocking sharing in DMs.
It seems that type of example is entirely missed here. Is there any attempt to capture that signal?
eigenspace · · focus · HN ↗
Literally even 4chan has moderation.
Nobody, not even 4chan users, want an actually unmoderated space.
NDlurker · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
NDlurker · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
NDlurker · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
NDlurker · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
account42 · · focus · HN ↗
That alone shows that the hyothetical "you" is the last person who should be allowed to moderate anything.
lirolero · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
econ · · focus · HN ↗
That one can only do it within reddit is of course merely a technical limitation. The idea can be implemented much more broadly.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗