Sort of, but not to this degree. I think there's 4 levels of "control" a sub can have.
0. "Soft" power from votes, which determines what topics are de facto allowed to be talked about. Mods don't have as much influence here (hence why it's not really "#1"), but they can still influence it by removing certain comments. The psychology of down votes and how it affects communities has been studied for well over a decade so this isn't too crazy
1. "Petty mod abuse", which is probably what many comments remember reddit comments for. You make a tame comment, some lawful evil mod removes your comment, and any discussion over that ruling is met with mutes or bans. This is usually backed by "some" rule, so most of the time they have some point (no matter how stupid)
2. "Soft rules abuse", which is where "off-site" behavior kicks in. Where there's unlisted rules that are enforced, often from behavior not even directly performed in that community. It can also be personal grudges from some sort of supermod, which bans you from multiple subs they moderate over behavior in one of their subs.
3. Then there's "sentiment abuse", where people are moderated less for their behavior and more for whatever the mod feels like that day. Either to forge their own narrative, or from being paid off and following some external party's sentiment. These are almost never listed as rules because they are either too blatantly biased ("do not insult Google" on r/Google wouldn't work out well, even if it is run by Google employees), or simply because the rules change too frequently.
I'd say r/conservative is solidly in tier 3, and even there is a very extreme example. It was interesting seeing how the sub quickly changed on topics like the Epstien files based on whatever spin occurred IRL.
Sort of, but not to this degree. I think there's 4 levels of "control" a sub can have.
0. "Soft" power from votes, which determines what topics are de facto allowed to be talked about. Mods don't have as much influence here (hence why it's not really "#1"), but they can still influence it by removing certain comments. The psychology of down votes and how it affects communities has been studied for well over a decade so this isn't too crazy
1. "Petty mod abuse", which is probably what many comments remember reddit comments for. You make a tame comment, some lawful evil mod removes your comment, and any discussion over that ruling is met with mutes or bans. This is usually backed by "some" rule, so most of the time they have some point (no matter how stupid)
2. "Soft rules abuse", which is where "off-site" behavior kicks in. Where there's unlisted rules that are enforced, often from behavior not even directly performed in that community. It can also be personal grudges from some sort of supermod, which bans you from multiple subs they moderate over behavior in one of their subs.
3. Then there's "sentiment abuse", where people are moderated less for their behavior and more for whatever the mod feels like that day. Either to forge their own narrative, or from being paid off and following some external party's sentiment. These are almost never listed as rules because they are either too blatantly biased ("do not insult Google" on r/Google wouldn't work out well, even if it is run by Google employees), or simply because the rules change too frequently.
I'd say r/conservative is solidly in tier 3, and even there is a very extreme example. It was interesting seeing how the sub quickly changed on topics like the Epstien files based on whatever spin occurred IRL.
You're talking 1 sub vs most of every major subreddit that is anti conservative. How can you even compare the two?
Where did I imply that only one sub is level 3? My levels aren't about politics, it's about behavior.
Heck, many other level 3 subs tend to be gaming ones. Ones clearly woth paid off mods who act as a PR wing rather than someone caretaking a community