You're listing several examples, including /r/conservative, yet even though this subreddit is widely known (on Reddit) to be a censored echo-chamber, you do not mention this aspect. I find it hard to believe, that this would be a coincidence.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith
Let's aim to keep HN better and more pleasant to use than Reddit;)
The HN guidelines are there to improve the quality of the conversation, there's not much to further discuss so I'm going to leave it at this.
The sub currently requires moderator approval (specific flair) to comment on most threads.
The parent commenter is correct: It is widely known as one of the most censored subs on Reddit because the mods remove comments from unapproved accounts (those without flair).
Their rules claim that some threads are open for everyone to participate in, which may have been the case in the past when you commented.
However it’s not true for any of the popular threads. They will remove comments from unflaired accounts
This is all state in their rules. It’s not speculation. The parent comment is correct.
How does the moderation in /r/conservatives, a subreddit for conservatives to discuss "from a distinctly conservative point of view", concern a liberal like yourself in any way?
This isn't a subreddit you need to participate in. I think it's more relevant how default subreddits or country subreddits are moderated in a similar way.
Even actual conservatives don’t like it. It’s like a propaganda operation where only approved think is allowed.