You're listing several examples, including /r/conservative, yet even though this subreddit is widely known (on Reddit) to be a censored echo-chamber, you do not mention this aspect. I find it hard to believe, that this would be a coincidence.
I did explain my reasoning. You coincidentally not mentioning /r/conservatives censorship practices, simply doesn't appear plausible, given the context of your comment and demonstrated knowledge of reddit moderating practices.
> I disagree with your assessment, if I remember correctly I posted three times on that sub.
The sub currently requires moderator approval (specific flair) to comment on most threads.
The parent commenter is correct: It is widely known as one of the most censored subs on Reddit because the mods remove comments from unapproved accounts (those without flair).
Their rules claim that some threads are open for everyone to participate in, which may have been the case in the past when you commented.
However it’s not true for any of the popular threads. They will remove comments from unflaired accounts
This is all state in their rules. It’s not speculation. The parent comment is correct.
No, they are not correct. They are comparing 1 sub (which they disagree with the whole idea of) vs most every popular sub on reddit. There is no comparison.
How does the moderation in /r/conservatives, a subreddit for conservatives to discuss "from a distinctly conservative point of view", concern a liberal like yourself in any way?
This isn't a subreddit you need to participate in. I think it's more relevant how default subreddits or country subreddits are moderated in a similar way.
It concerns me insofar as the comment I was responding to, mentioned that participation in /r/conservative got him banned in another subreddit, while failing to mention the nature of /r/conservative as a heavily censored echo chamber.
