I'm not sure about removing posts I've never noticed that on r/science. But just because I have not witnessed it doesn't mean it isn't true. I do have to say in post comments all the jokes, anecdotal stories (I'm guilty!) or bickering are quickly removed and that seems appropriate for the science. Let actual verified scientists answer genuine questions or make comments in a post's comments section.
This seems like both sides have good points but one side is the overall owner. The majority of subreddits have abysmal moderation quickly locking what the mods can't be bothered to moderate. Locking posts stifles debate it's just pure moderator laziness.
Just FYI, there's no question if it's true. The mod admitted it in the article:
"Allen admitted to the Daily Dot that he deleted popular r/science posts so AMAs would be more prominently featured. But he argues the controversial action was required for his posts to gain widespread visibility.
“[deleting posts] is a consequence of the nature of the user base’s interest in science,” Allen told the Daily Dot. “Meaning, if science is put in front of them, they [Reddit users] like it. But they don’t go seek it out. That’s for stupid cat pictures and other relaxing things. Science isn’t.”"
[Comment removed]
[Comment Removed]
[Comment Removed]
[Comment Removed]
That kind of stuff made me unsub r/science . It was turning into a cesspool of narrowminded busybodies. Kind of reminds me how StackOverflow is.
> Additionally, Reddit stopped allowing what Huffman calls “post manipulation” to highlight certain content. Moderators at r/science and other popular subreddits have been accused of deleting highly ranking posts to push individual items to the top of their page. From there, they would gain visibility and receive upvotes to be featured on the main page.