If ONE moderator disagrees with you, your post is gone.
On StackExchange.com, deletion votes exist, as far as I know. (And spam is defeated autonomously through downvotes anyway.)
But let's say a subreddit has 30 moderators. If one happens to disagree on you (or is a sociopath / corporate shill), while the 29 others would not have taken action, your work still gets usurped with [removed].
This means that if one shill gains moderator status, the subreddit is compromised.
There is also nowhere to contest the deletion, as administrators tend to side with corrupt moderators rather than legitimate users. Low accountability (e.g. nonpublic moderation logs) enables such poor behaviour.
If ONE moderator disagrees with you, your post is gone.
On StackExchange.com, deletion **votes** exist, as far as I know. (And spam is defeated autonomously through downvotes anyway.)
But let's say a subreddit has 30 moderators. If **one** happens to disagree on you (or is a sociopath / corporate shill), while the 29 others would not have taken action, your work still gets usurped with *[removed]*.
This means that if **one shill** gains moderator status, the subreddit is **compromised**.
There is also nowhere to contest the deletion, as administrators tend to side with corrupt moderators rather than legitimate users. Low accountability (e.g. nonpublic moderation logs) enables such poor behaviour.
(post is archived)