[root_axis]

> they should also disclose their bias

This isn't a practical idea. People aren't always aware of their own biases and critics are also inclined to see bias even when there is none. There is no practical way to determine bias levels.

> Reddit is very happy to claim they are unbiased, neutral, hate free.

Are they? Can you point to an example of such a claim?

> But some preferred subreddits will ban people for heaving wrong gender or wrong race

Subbredits are run by users.

> They also tolerate hate speech, incitement to violence or even advocacy for genocide , if it matches their ideology.

Reddit would say they don't tolerate those things, you say they do, how do we determine who is right?

[Supermancho]

> Subbredits are run by users.

No, they are run day to day by users, but ultimately are at the discretion of the site owners. Case in point, this article we are discussing.

> Reddit would say they don't tolerate those things, you say they do, how do we determine who is right?

The behavior of the site owners? Reddit site owners treat different subreddits differently and different viewpoints differently, although there is single characteristic differences (gender, race, etc) because of the people and topics that are generated from the groups. Pre-censoring, is not uncommon, which has led up to this wrongthink penalty.

If you're challenging the history of reddit, you aren't informed enough to be discussing this and it's not worth rehashing.

[root_axis]

> but ultimately are at the discretion of the site owners

The site owners don't ban users based on race and gender which is the claim I responded to.

> Reddit site owners treat different subreddits differently and different viewpoints differently

Well yes, that is how standards work, "different views" are treated differently based on how they stack up with respect to the standard. I understand that you're arguing that reddit applies the rules selectively, but reddit would argue that they apply them fairly, so how do you suggest this kind of conflict be resolved at scale? Who should decide if reddit is being fair or not?

> If you're challenging the history of reddit, you aren't informed enough to be discussing this and it's not worth rehashing.

If you want to make an argument then make it, but condescending declarations of a monopoly on the informed position does not do your case any favors.

[Supermancho]

> does not do your case any favors

I'm not making a case. I'm describing the state of the reddit culture. Whether you believe it or not, is incidental.

> The site owners don't ban users based on race and gender which is the claim I responded to.

Your statements were broader than that. Revisionism aside, you can get banned for voting on a post, and there are lots of rules (written and unwritten by each community) that can get you banned from the subreddit or reddit as a whole. Making statements about YOUR gender (or a number of other attributes) can also get you banned. Here, I'll do a google search for you (since you can't be bothered) for subreddit bans, to start you off: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=subredd...

You aren't informed enough to be discussing this and it's not worth rehashing.

[root_axis]

> I'm not making a case.

That much is clear.

> I'm describing the state of the reddit culture. Whether you believe it or not, is incidental.

Very convincing. Oh, I know, you don't care about that in the least.

> Your statements were broader than that. Revisionism aside...

No, they weren't. You stated that the subreddits are ultimately controlled by the site owners, and I explained that the site owners don't ban people based on race and gender. Simple. Revisionism indeed.

> Making statements about YOUR gender (or a number of other attributes) can also get you banned. Here, I'll do a google search for you

The results of the google search does not support the claim you're making, like, not even a single result. Beyond that, mods can ban users for whatever reason they want, but the site owners do not ban people based on their race and gender, that claim is totally false.

> You aren't informed enough to be discussing this and it's not worth rehashing.

lol, a laughable assertion coming from someone who can't even cherry-pick google search results to support their argument. Stop wasting my time.

[Supermancho]

> cherry-pick google search results to support their argument.

Not cherry picking to make an observation that documents the history. Its an ongoing, and well covered, topic for which you can demonstrably research without difficulty. Denial doesnt help either of us and causes me to question your sincerity. Good luck with whatever.