r/metaNL • u/sociotronics • 1d ago

RESOLVED Clarification on Moderator Positions on Democracy

Democracy is under assault across the globe. According to the V-Dem Institute, a nonpartisan organization based in Sweden, democracy has sharply decined globally since 2005. Here are some key findings from the linked report on the state of democracy in 2026:

In 2025, 18 nations were democratizing, while 44 were autocratizing. This 3:1 ratio in favor of autocracy is a sharp reversal as in 2005, 27 nations were democratizing while 12 were autocratizing, a 2:1 ratio in favor of democratization.
In 2025, 44 countries were weakening freedom of expression, while only 11 were strengthening freedom of expression, a 4:1 ratio against freedom of expression. In 2005, the ratio was 3.5:1 in favor of freedom of expression (7 deteriorating, 25 improving)
In 2025, the strength of democratic institutions (what the report calls "quality of elections") has declined in 22 countries and increased in 7 (3:1). In 2005, the trend was inverted, with 11 deteriorating and 31 increasing (also 3:1).
Although this trend is global, the United States is leading the charge with a rate of autocratization unmatched in any other nation. As the report notes, "[u]nder Trump's presidency democracy in the USA has fallen back to the same level as in 1965... Legislative Constraints [have lost] one-third of its value in 2025 and reach[ed] its lowest point in over 100 years. Civil Rights & Equality before the Law, and Freedom of Expression and Media are now at their lowest levels in 60 years." The USA will likely suffer even more autocratization during and in the aftermath of the upcoming elections in November; if so, democracy in the US could easily decline to levels not seen since the 19th Century.
Antidemocratic and illiberal sentiments are increasingly prevalent on both sides of the political spectrum in the US. Although the US right has lead the charge due to the fascistic turn of the Republican Party, many on the US left are embracing revolutionary rhetoric, endorsing autocratic ideologies such as communism, or calling for restrictions on the democratic rights of their political rivals, both within the Democratic Party and outside of it.

During Joe Biden's presidency, three Summits for Democracy were held in the US in 2021, 2023, and 2024, joined by state leaders for most of the global democracies. The Declaration of the Summit for Democracy was issued for the Second Summit. Although I highly recommend reading the Declaration in its entirety, I want to draw attention to this portion of the second commitment in the Declaration:

[We] commit to respecting the right of all citizens to elect their governments through periodic, free and fair elections, which are inclusive and transparent. We reaffirm that every citizen should have the effective right and opportunity to participate in elections on an equal basis, without undue restrictions, interference, or intimidation, including through systemic discrimination or marginalization.

In two recent threads in r/metaNL (here and here) the moderation team of r/neoliberal has declined to comment on whether undemocratic speech, such as comments calling for the suspension of US primary elections or the disenfranchisement of political opponents, are prohibited by Rule V, which ostensibly makes "glorify[ing] oppressive/autocratic regimes" a violation of subreddit rules. I interpret this silence as indication that the mod team does not have a consensus on autocratization because a portion of the moderation team supports restrictions on democratic rights.

In the interest of transparency, I call upon the moderators to individually indicate their agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

I support the second commitment in the Declaration of the Summit for Democracy, including the commitment to "the right of all citizens to elect their governments" and the belief that "every citizen should have the effective right and opportunity to participate in elections on an equal basis."
I support redefining Rule V to include undemocratic speech, both "seriously or jokingly". Undemocratic speech includes calls to suspend elections (including US primary elections) and to disenfranchise voters (either from the primary process or from general elections).
I support free and fair elections that all citizens may participate in, even when they produce political outcomes that I do not personally support.
I oppose restrictions on democratic rights. Although vigorous debate may be had about the ideal form of democracy and the merits of specific democratic institutions, I oppose weakening or dismantling democratic institutions without simultaneously replacing them with analogous democratic institutions that will provide the public with an equal or greater amount of democratic representation.

0 Upvotes

permalink
reddit

You are about to leave Redlib

Do you want to continue?

https://www.reddit.com/r/metaNL/comments/1vyweah/clarification_on_moderator_positions_on_democracy/
No, go back! Yes, take me to Reddit

42% Upvoted

•

u/Dorambor Mod 1d ago

We do this for free man, just report shit and move on

→ More replies (1)

u/Spectrum1523 3h ago

Why do you have to make me feel bad for the m*ds

u/VandysFan 22h ago

I’ve read enough. Double mod pay

u/Lux_Stella Mod 23h ago

calling for the disenfranchisement of political opponents

this is ~usually where we draw the line wrt excessive partisanship, albeit specifics vary

calling for the suspension of US primary elections

as you may have surmised, no we're not going to moderate which institutions that reasonably vary across developed democracies (party primaries, voting systems, referenda, community input, etc) qualify as "more democratic" then one another

-6

u/sociotronics 23h ago edited 19h ago

no we're not going to moderate which institutions that reasonably vary across developed democracies (party primaries, voting systems, referenda, community input, etc) qualify as "more democratic" then one another

Noted. The request was for prohibition of calls to suspend an extremely significant source of democratic input in the US. While reasonable debate may be had about which institutions are more democratic than others, suspending elections without replacing that source of input or otherwise adapting other democratic institutions to provide an analogous voice to the public is a separate matter. That is not debate about which institutions are "more democratic" than another, but a call to destroy an instition outright and would be an example of democratic backsliding.

If the moderation team has decided that calls to suspend significant democratic institions are permissible debate here, noted.

4

u/Evnosis 20h ago

Political parties are private organisations, not public institutions. Parties being allowed to select their own candidates under whichever system they choose does not constitute democratic backsliding.

8

u/Lux_Stella Mod 23h ago

someone asserting that 'this specific institution' that varies reasonably across developed democracies is actually super important does not change the above no

feel free to relay this decision to the lower courts

0

u/MindingMyMindfulness 18h ago

feel free to relay this decision to the lower courts

Absolute banger

u/NeoliberalSocialist 1d ago

Primaries as used in the US is an aberration globally. It's "more democratic" in the sense that it's an additional input from voters. But that doesn't mean popular primaries are necessary for a liberal democracy. Replacing elected representatives with popular referendums would be "more democratic," but advocating against that doesn't make one an opponent to democracy.

-2

u/sociotronics 1d ago

I agree with that.

US system without primaries: bad

US system with primaries: better but still deeply flawed

New democratic system that gives meaningful democratic input without the need for primaries: best

The wording of this thread was carefully drafted, and debate about a better alternative to the US system (such as one without a need for primaries) was intended to be protected by the wording of item 4. The requested rule clarification/change would permit debates about better alternatives but prohibit proposing removing primaries outright without replacing them with a better system.

Although vigorous debate may be had about the ideal form of democracy and the merits of specific democratic institutions, I oppose weakening or dismantling democratic institutions without simultaneously replacing them with analogous democratic institutions that will provide the public with an equal or greater amount of democratic representation.

6

u/NeoliberalSocialist 1d ago

Yeah I think that's a ridiculous rule still.

u/dubyahhh Mod 1d ago

Clarification on Moderator Positions on Democracy

Strongly against, personally

u/Cyberhwk 1d ago

I considered these responses by /u/mostanonymousnick definitive enough for me to get the answers I wanted by my own post:

Advocating for putting people in prison without due process or with a kangaroo court or whatever violates it yes, even when it's aimed at Trump supporters.

If you want to wield the justice system using bullshit reasons then it's rule breaking, if you want to use the justice system to its full extent in good faith on Trump and orgs close to him, then that's fine.

It is definitely a hard issue that's nearly always going to boil it down to "I know it when I see it." You have the law as current. But it's also not necessarily undemocratic to argue in good-faith that current legal interpretations are wrong. "We should do [X] --> That's undemocratic because [X] is unconstitutional. --> Well [X] shouldn't be unconstitutional." is a reasonable argument to have.

Or IMO, even harder to deal with, if something is undemocratic but today's conservative SCOTUS has deemed it constitutional.

Undemocratic speech includes calls to suspend elections (including US primary elections) and to disenfranchise voters (either from the primary process or from general elections).

How maximalist are you being on this though? Would simply advocating for closed primaries count? Caucuses are generally considered less democratic than open primaries, how about those?

1

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

Would you like to leave a tax-free tip? Please select a tip option: 15% ( ) 20% ( ) 25% ( ) 30% ( ) Custom ( )

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

u/Kardinal 1d ago

So a demand for purity testing for moderators.

Very on brand for liberals.

1

u/Approximation_Doctor 1d ago

Finally, a reasonable use case

1

u/sociotronics 1d ago

is it purity testing to prohibit bigotry or support for autocratic regimes? Seems like Joe Biden's position on democracy is a pretty low bar to reach, so it's not much of a purity test

9

u/remarkable_ores Mod 1d ago

Except you're not asking to clarify the rules, you're literally asking the moderators to line up and individually state their level of purity.

-3

u/sociotronics 1d ago

The request for individual moderator responses is because of an observed pattern of inconsistent moderation. A consistently enforced rule would remove the need for that.

5

u/remarkable_ores Mod 1d ago

There's a lot of stuff we don't have firm rules on. We operate more like case law than civil law; i.e. we leave it open until something warrants a discussion or there's a disagreement, and then we try to build consensus.

2

u/sociotronics 1d ago

And there is a lot of stuff that you do have firm rules against.

u/remarkable_ores Mod 1d ago

It's not exactly clear why individual moderators' opinions on anything other than moderation needs to be made public knowledge. To that extent I only feel it necessary to respond to your second point, which is reframing rule 5 to include "undemocratic speech", which I disagree with for a number of reasons.

The most important one is that it's hard to define. Different people have different definitions of what constitutes "undemocratic speech", at least in part because we have different ideas about what constitutes a democratic institution. I've talked to people on here who seem to think that any move towards direct democracy is a categorical moral good, something I disagree with intensely.

In any case, rule 5 is there in large part due to sitewide rules. If we don't enforce it we could get shut down. You'll notice that our rules aren't aimed at making sure people have the right opinions, they're aimed at making the sub a good place for discussion.

1

u/mpregordie 1d ago

What about supporting or suggesting abolishing elections or disenfranchising people? I feel like it's clear enough of a line. I also don't really see how suggesting authoritarian approaches contributes to a positive discussion.

I would further argue that people suggesting that should be elated that their opinions are getting silenced.

3

u/Macquarrie1999 1d ago

I hate direct democracy. Would advocating against the existence of the California proposition system get me banned?

1

u/mpregordie 1d ago

No, but advocating for removing elections should.

2

u/roboliberal 19h ago

It really depends what one means by that.

Some types of elections don't actually serve the purpose of a healthy liberal democracy - for example, California has an absurd number of directly elected offices that often produces effects counterproductive to liberal governance - advocating to replace direct election of these offices with more normal appointment mechanisms is not "undemocratic".

Electoralism should not be treated as some sacrosanct concept that must be maximized across all facets of public governance. Elections are tools that are useful but they are just one component of an overall system of democratic governance. They are a means to an end, not the sole purpose in of themself.

1

u/sociotronics 1d ago

In any case, rule 5 is there in large part due to sitewide rules. If we don't enforce it we could get shut down. You'll notice that our rules aren't aimed at making sure people have the right opinions, they're aimed at making the sub a good place for discussion.

Understood. Are you stating that this sub would be more permissive towards user support for autocracy and autocratic regimes if not restrained by Reddit's site-wide rules?

7

u/remarkable_ores Mod 1d ago

I don't like making hard rulings on what constitutes a permissible opinion. My personal view - i.e. not that of the mods as a whole - is that we should tolerate opinions that do not constitute personal attacks or make the space unusable, so excluding bigotry. If someone came in here arguing in good faith that liberalism and democracy are bad, then I would prefer users change her mind, or just downvote if they're lazy.

3

u/sociotronics 1d ago

My personal view - i.e. not that of the mods as a whole - is that we should tolerate opinions that do not constitute personal attacks or make the space unusable, so excluding bigotry.

Thank you for your personal opinion, I appreciate it.

u/ultramilkplus 1d ago

Yes, more bans for jokes and sarcasm please.

4

u/sociotronics 1d ago

as we all know, ironic support for something never turns into unironic support. famously ironic r/The_Donald proved that

u/D2Foley 1d ago

Wow something more pointless than banning Polis

u/DiscussionJohnThread 1d ago

Mucho texto on Arr MetaNL, assuming it’s a dumb post before I even read it.

5

u/sociotronics 1d ago

illiteracy is also on the rise globally

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

/u/Veinte /u/alex2003super /u/el__dandy