I made an admittedly editorialized post, but that is allowed. There is no rule against editorializing titles. The link was to this excellent story by Erin Reed:
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/iowa-dem-josh-turek-releases-anti
The story documents the efforts of Democrat-in-Name-Only Josh Turek to graft Republican anti-trans policies and bigotry into the Democratic party. The (supposed) automoderator flagged the post and removed it for being a “substack post.” However, it was likely a manual removal as I would expect automoderator to work quickly, while this was up for hours.
The rule cited was:
“Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading.”
This article clearly meets this requirement. Erin in the Morning is an entire journalistic operation with multiple employees. I’m sure they’re incorporated in some form. Erin Reed is the most prominent trans rights journalist in the US, probably in the world. She’s nationally famous, has won numerous national journalism awards, and has a Wikipedia page. She frequently appears on national media and speaks at events of all kinds. She is one of the most prominent transgender people in the United States.
But apparently if you’re trans, to c/politics, regardless of what you accomplish, you can never be a real journalist, only a blogger. Real journalism is for cis people only.
/c/politics is a hive of scum and pedantry, with a healthy dose of hypocrisy. If you say:
…while allowing articles that are blatant AI summaries from trash rags like the DailyBeast and Business Insider simply because they’re tied to a company, you’re not fostering political discussion. You’re advancing a corporate agenda.
I think that’s somewhat fair.
What rule would you suggest to keep out random blogs but include the ones of significance?
What the hell kind of question is that? Why do you think a question like that can be answered with a rule perfectly? Do you understand how toxic and flawed of a view that is of things that cannot be decided by black and white rules?
I wouldn’t. I’d let the community decide via voting. You don’t engender discussion by silencing speakers because they don’t meet your requirements of legitimacy. If there’s a question of legitimacy or bad faith discussion, identify it, talk about it, and downvote the hell out of it if needed.
But don’t remove it. Once you do, you’re no longer curating a discussion. You’re promoting an agenda.
Rejecting a voice out of hand because of whom its coming from is blatant censorship, and a tacit admission that your ideas can’t compete with theirs in the arena of public discourse.