Generally, they say I didn't "include links." Whether I have any links, or not.
If I press them on it, they then say I need to adhere to Rule 3: "Clarity" which means I need to explain the links.
With posts limited to 10,000 characters, it is literally impossible for me to include sources in a single post, but the rule is that all the sources must fit in the post. Like trying to prove Pizzagate on Twitter. It's obnoxious.
A few years ago, they asked for people to submit a summary of Pizzagate for a sticky. Mine was the most upvoted, but they chose another.
So, someone asked me to post to /v/Pizzagate, which I don't really do, because everything gets deleted.
I screenshotted text, so I could fit the character limited, then included links and brief explanations. It is literally the longest, most well sourced post /v/Pizzagate has ever seen.
I was immediately told that it violates Rule 3, again.
Sounds like reddit cancer mods.
Indeed. Their desire to push disinformation and leave out important stuff is pretty well-documented, at this point. It's good to challenge them, once in a while.
Their next step will be to upvote dozens of other posts to bury mine without touching it.
seems like common tactics used on voat, sad that it is allowed.
(post is archived)