2 ms·

In theory that would work, but in practice that kind of thing dies within 1 minute because, "It's not seeking an objective explanation" or is a "Loaded question

• koolba 10y ago
  > In theory that would work, but in practice that kind of thing dies within 1 minute because, "It's not seeking an objective explanation" or is a "Loaded question". More often than not, in subreddits like that, you get over-moderation. My ELI5 example wasn't meant to call out shilling in that subreddit. It was meant to be an overtly obvious example of shilling and I used ELI5 in jest. > As for "shill mods"... ok, yes, but then I'd ask you to point out the pattern you'd expect to see as a result. It's not shilling, because there's no dishonesty about it, but this website actively prunes items they don't want to see form the nucleus for a discussion. The pattern is obvious, and would be frankly impossible to hide. It's inherently dishonest if the subreddit itself purports to be impartial. The classic example of this is /r/politics with content that is pro-conservative, or, more generally, content that's isn't pro-liberal or explicitly anti-conservative. > So... do you see that pattern in ELI5? I don't. Climate change questions come up from all sides of the debate, likewise with a lot of other issues. I'm sure people try to inject questions that lead to certain discussions, but does it work? Again, I didn't mean to call out anything specific to /r/ELI5.