I don't think anyone would disagree that moderation is largely necessary, if done properly it can greatly increase the quality of posts seen on a forum. However, when poorly done, done for the purposes of financial gain or for a personal agenda it can greatly upset the userbase for that forum and begin to cause problems.

When r/conspiracy (and r/news, r/undelete, r/subredditdrama and r/worldnews) "cried censorship" what they were upset over was in fact an act of censorship. By it's very nature moderation requires censorship, it comes with the job. In this case, people took issue with the moderators use of their very loosely defined rule "opinion/analysis" which allowed what a great majority considered valuable, quality content to be removed from r/news. This is in reality what everyone had a problem with, as they believed that on a forum such as r/news there should be no reason why such an article would not be allowed. Whether or not it violated such a vaguely worded rule was beside the point.

As to this post at hand, there are many details I find wanting, misleading and in some cases blatant deception. Key amongst this being that r/conspiracy was calling BipolarBear0 anti-semitic. In fact, what they have been doing is calling out his several attempts of posting anti-semitic material to r/conspiracy in order to discredit the subreddit, an act which BipolarBear0 even admits himself

Having established that your post is deceptive at best, let's move on to what I find misleading. BipolarBear0 finally approved my post of the zerohedge article which used Greenwald's post as a source, after refusing to allow the original source to be posted. In the most part you are correct, the comments focused far more on the censorship of Greenwald's article than the article itself. However, I would not say the focus was on BipolarBear0, but instead the top thread appeared to be mostly about the act of censorship, and my shadowbanning due to asking for upvotes. If the focus was on BipolarBear0, or if he was called terrible, it was likely due to me documenting my discussions with him to get the article approved, which was posted in the top post of the article.

Finally, I would like to take a little time to discuss how you met. in your post you claim you met as co-founders of RT4. Excuse me for me being a bit surprised, by how is it two strangers who have never talked before up and decide to co-found a movement on reddit? In what was did you settle on your roles in RT4, you being in marketing and BipolarBear0 journalism, and finally how did BipolarBear0 come about to moderating RT4circlejerk?

While I appreciate your attempt to defend your friend, your post leaves a few unanswered questions to say the very least.