On a "free speech" site this shouldn't be an issue. The sub moderator is free to choose whom they associate with, no?
On a "free speech" site this shouldn't be an issue.
Being banned? Depends on your definition of free speech. This is a very old argument that goes back to Voats early days.
The sub moderator is free to choose whom they associate with, no?
That depends on if you believe a sub is a mods private fiefdom or whether it belongs to the users.
It belongs to whom created it, obviously. Why would anything else be the case? If website owners want to allow others to own parts of their platform, then they should be hands off, or don't allow that, or have rules on what owning part of their site entails. I think that the sub owner (posession is 9/10ths law) is free to do whatever the fuck they want, unless the site has rules saying otherwise.
It belongs to whom created it, obviously
The problem with this is that it creates power mods who create vast amounts of territory and use this territory to impose their personal views on a user base. This is what caused so many problems on reddit, and why Voat was so against it, because it can lead to abuse.
Remember on Reddit how the top 100 subs had the same 6 mods or something? He does have a point that this has the ability to lead to topical control over the majority of the front pages by just a few people
(post is archived)