/r/NewYorkCity seems heavily censored, strongly left wing, and the community downvote bombs even vaguely dissenting opinions.

If you look on the front page you’ll notice that mods there only approve feel-good news stories and posts- there’s very little real world coverage there. Every post goes under moderation.

A subreddit isn't obligated to feature every possible article about crime, especially considering it's just a fact that the violent crime rate is significantly lower in NYC than the rest of the country.

They're not obligated to allow the community to post about what it wants to, you're right. Mods are allowed to censor posts, comments, and entire communities. Which is what they do. Which is what I just said.

Safety and crime are top issues for voters. If you want to control a narrative, then keeping stories about an issue you want to draw voter attention away from is a great way to do it, i.e. censorship.

Finally, are you suggesting that a voter populace shouldn't care about an issue if it's relatively less severe compared to other parts of the world? So if pollution is higher in X city, we shouldn't concern ourselves with pollution in NYC? That's a strange take.

You're a strange take.

Safety and crime are top of mind because tabloid journalists push a narrative of the city being out of control, which only perpetuates fear of safety and crime.

In actuality, if you go outside or actually live in the city, it’s extremely unlikely you’ll be a victim of a random crime. If you ride the subway, it’s extremely unlikely you’ll encounter a situation where your life is in danger. But if every story you read in the paper is about crime, you’re going to think the world is falling apart.

They're both lousy with redditors

Except people are bad at judging what's actually a threat to them and what's not.

Conveniently, creating fear of crime helps right wing politicians and narratives, even if it's not accurate or reflective of reality.

For example, violence on the subway has been the chosen right wing narrative lately. But the crime rate on the subway is 1.6 per million riders in NYC. That translates to a couple crimes a day, all of which are featured on the New York Post and this subreddit.

Compare to the motor vehicle death rate (accidents, etc) of 1.6 per 100k residents in NY state.

To be clear, the motor vehicle death rate is ten times higher than the subway crime rate.

So regardless of the narrative you clearly want to push as well, it's not accurate. And yes, it's fair to moderate it.

From what I've seen, most people don't actually perceive a huge difference, and either only know about one, or use both indifferently. That's to be expected, because a huge percentage of Reddit users in general only come on the site to consume content, and don't think too critically about the moderation styles and communities of the subs they join as long as they put interesting things in their feed. Of course, few of them will comment in this thread, so you might not realize that's the majority.

Of the people that do have a preference one way or another, I've observed that r/nyc users think r/newyorkcity is over-moderated by extremely liberal mods. r/newyorkcity users think r/nyc is full of conservatives and is, depending on who you ask, under-moderated or over-moderated by conservative mods.

I use both, although not indifferently. A case could be made that r/newyorkcity is slightly more left-leaning and more strongly moderated, but both reflect the variety of political views you find in the city to some extent. There is one clear difference, though: r/newyorkcity users are significantly more likley to have a strong opinion on r/nyc than the other way around, as you've probably observed by now.

I'd recommend using both as well. I'll save my rant about the two party system for a more relevant thread, but I will say that people in the city are much more likley to pick and choose which parts of a given party's platform they subscribe to than people in other parts of the country are, so you shouldn't assume you're "surrounded by trumpies" just because somebody voices one tough on crime opinion.

Anonymity has its pluses and minuses.

[removed]

Not everyone has the privilege of being a big young man, afford to take taxi/Uber everywhere or have a doorman and private security.

If you believe people care about safety just because of the media, that means you’re wildly disconnected from the reality of common people.

I’m on the train or bus 7 days a week and I’ve never had a doorman or private security. But please, continue to make assumptions about people you know nothing about.

>Except people are bad at judging what's actually a threat to them and what's not.

How do you know that it's not you who's bad at judging threats? You've compared apples to oranges in your naive threat assessment - motor vehicle accidents are accidents. Subway beatings, slashings, stabbings, pushings, and attacks are not accidents.

The preventative strategies aren't comparable, the causes aren't comparable, the voting and governing strategies to mitigate the issues aren't comparable either.

Or would you, o wise one, have us believe being hit by a car and being hit by a knife is just the same, so we can vote in the direction of your choosing?

This post just got removed from r/nyc, but is one of the more popular ones right now on r/newyorkcity

I guess that says it all about which is more heavily censored…

Because it’s a long-proven fact that Americans consistently and heavily overestimate crime rates and (coincidentally I’m sure) the size of minority populations.

Republicans had no chance in hell to win NY. They were not even seriously trying, otherwise they would not nominate Zeldin.

To say that they were pushing crimes news to win votes is backwards. This is not a media feat.

It’s an incompetence feat by our NY state politicians ever since we acquired a super-majority control.

Crimes have been an increasing issue, and now the republicans are capitalizing on it. Can’t blame them for that.

It was obvious for everyone to see once Adams was elected that people care about safety.

But our fake-progressives have been trying to ignore the reality. Trying to blame the media is just another form of trying to avoid the reality.

On car deaths, NYC had fewer than 200 this year so far. Murders were twice as much.

But people in NYC are not worried about dying in a car accident nor being murdered. There’s a lot more violence than doesn’t involve someone dying.

>Rule 11: No complaint posts, rants or private conversations in the subreddit

Might fall under this. At least there's a rule for it.

They said it was because it was a question.

Whatever the reason is, valid or not, just an observation I found funny.

I would love for you to consider why you think traffic accidents are not controllable or worth considering, but violence is controllable and worth considering.

You already know, I hope, that it's much more risky to your life to drive in a car than take the subway. You could consider all sorts of regulations or laws that could make driving more safe, but you only want to focus on random violent crime which is more rare and less deadly.

And motor vehicle deaths are low compared to all sorts of diseases and conditions.

Are you suggesting that voters should only care about crime if the per capita rate reaches a certain threshold? Would the threshold be benchmarked against other cities, states, or other countries? And once it's high enough (i.e. crime rate in Mainstreet USA reaches Venezuela's crime rate), what course of action should be taken? Are voters allowed to act on it then, and what should their action be in your view?

p.s. Americans can overestimate minority population sizes for any number of reasons besides news media, including over-representation in fictional media, as is the case with African Americans.

>I would love for you to consider why you think traffic accidents are not controllable or worth considering, but violence is controllable and worth considering.

I never claimed either of those things. Re-read my post, you've overlooked my central points.