Since mods come from the userbase, what does that say about the mods?
> The users on the thread you linked think that filtering out shitty new sources is some kind of right-wing conspiracy.
Some do, sure. Many others, including ex-mods, see it for what it is: censorship.
"Censorship" is a biased word, usually chosen by people who don't like what's being enforced. I would perhaps use the word "filtering" and it's perfectly common in a lot of subreddits. I don't think "censoring" is fair because all the same topics and events will still get discussed. The theory being that now, discussion starts with - on average - better reporting.
Only to someone in favor of censorship.
That wasn't the issue. The issue was the word 'censorship' being perceived as a biased word. Only censors or those with the predilection to censor would think the word is "biased".
I'm positing that filtering has neither a positive nor a negative connotation; that all information gets through anyway, it's only low-quality sources of the same information that are filtered; and that calling it censorship in a comment inappropriately pre-disposes the reader to a negative reaction.