I don't understand the evil-capitalist rationale for that. I would think reddit, like facebook, gets much of its revenue (or viewership, that turns into revenu

I don't understand the evil-capitalist rationale for that. I would think reddit, like facebook, gets much of its revenue (or viewership, that turns into revenue) from people squabbling over the topic of the day/month/year and thus benefits from outrage at skeptics. Why not keep them around? Anecdotally I've found if I just say something relatively unbacked or 'stupid sounding' that the mainstream can easily attack to make my argument sound dumb, I don't get the ban/removal. It's only when you present a factual argument, and especially if you start winning people over, that reddit is especially quick to ban you. I've noticed this same progression on HN. If I lose the debate due to not enough facts/persuasion, then people tend to leave it at that and rest satisfied they put an idiot in their place -- why would they want that comment removed when it can stay there as a head on a spike. If I introduce facts but they are unpopular, it will get downvoted to hell and people seem satisfied with that. However, if I actually start winning people over then my comment gets flagged, because we can't allow the wrong view to 'win.'