cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/60365167
Case 1
Moderator carrotcypher says "removed for paywall." When asked about which rule this breaks, receives no response. The post is then locked.
Case 2
Same as the first, except this time there is no paywall - the link is to a freely accessible advocate.com page.
It is censored with no explanation.
Case 3
Same as Case 2, moderators censor the post and leave no explanation.
Case 4
This one is finally given a removal reason: a rule that does not exist in the sidebar, and seems to have nothing to do with the post ("Your post has been removed for being too specific to a company or single product.")
But in a censored comment, the OP of the post says they received a different removal reason:
This time, other people notice the censorship and the nonsensical nature of the official removal reason.
Since this removal, there has been no further post of this news in r/privacy. Sources tell me the moderators refuse to explain their decision.
You say to much.
See? That's enough.
Since origin. Be design. They were never special against the any of the other info vampires. The only difference between them and FBInc, TwiXXXer, and the other Big Fangs was that they didn't originally ask you for nearly as much info. That was just a chantry of pretending not to collect what it knew was already being gathered anyway.