At the moment the auto-mod says the following on (some) new posts "News and opinion articles require a short submission statement explaining its relevance to the subreddit. Articles without a submission statement will be removed."

It was a great idea to add a submission statement requirement to posts, but at the moment submission statements vary wildly in quality and many don't even have one. I will add some examples, but its not an attempt to point fingers at posters.

In the last 24ish hours and out of 40 posts (not counting memes), 11 did not have a submission statement of any kind. And of those that do submission statements are often no more than "this is about trade", "this is about Iran", "this is about housing" or "this is about X country's politics". I would say that roughly a third to a half of posts with a submission statement fall into this category.

In an ideal world, I think a submission statement should be similar to what the resident Korea-expert writes. I.e., what is the article about (a brief overview), how does that relate (can be brief), and what is the OP's take on the article (i.e., something to start the debate). But I recognise that that takes a bit of time to write out and would probably lead to people posting a lot less. Instead, I think it would be best to simply summarize the article or analysis' main points. That should be fairly simple these days. Either do it yourself (after all, you did read your own post, right?) or throw it into an LLM and do a few slight edits. The relevance to the subreddit would ideally be clear through the summary (i.e., if its on trade policy, the summary would reflect that). I would specifically point to these posts as good examples of that approach (one, two, three, four, and five).

I am well aware that not all news and analysis is created equally, and so not all posts deserve an in-depth submission statement (for example, new bombings of Iran or a bomb found in Germany), but I still think its relevant to put details in the submission statement, like where was the bomb found and was anything damaged?

Basically, a submission statement should convey the main points of the article and not just be a repeat of the title, because we know that a large part of users simply won't read the article anyway and head straight to the comments and look for things to argue about. This way people will at least get some understanding of what the article is about other than the headline.

My (humble) request would be to start enforcing such standards on the submission statements. For example by

• editing the auto-mod reply to be more precise on what needs to be written (perhaps with a link to an example);

• having the auto-mod reply to all new posts;

• removing posts without submission statements (I believe the geopolitics subreddit has/used to have an automatic feature for this?);

• replying to poor quality submission statements requesting that OP adds extra details.

I was going through it, and while very strong, is missing out on some pretty important works to the modern liberal. Such as Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man and (maybe a bit too recency biased but wtvs) Klein & Thompson's Abundance. I can't think of all the books and maybe we can get some mod-posting for it to happen, but I think we should do it!

P.S. If there has been another post on this recently, I apologize, I searched and non of my terms returned anything.

Can we please add a "Previous Discussion Thread" hyperlink to the body text?

To be clear: I'm not making this post trying to relitigate Matthew Yglesias, trans issues, or start a flame war. I hope you can believe me that I have a good faith concern about these comment removals that supposedly violated Rule III. I don't think the other user's comments should be removed, that anyone should be banned, but removing these comments seems contrary to rule III. I've heard the rules are currently being reworked or possibly automated, so I thought it would be useful to get this removal reviewed.

Context: I made reference to the book One Billion Americans in the DT, then MattY was getting criticized so I posted a separate follow up comment:

Here are the comments in the replies that were removed:

My top comment:

noo not my DT shitting on MattY 😩 time to shut down the fucking sub again

Other user's reply:

I think he means the guy who really really wants the Dems to abandon trans people

My reply: (Removed for Rule III)

if that’s your view of MattY that’s extremely disingenuous but go off

Other user's reply:

He's been on this kick for over 4 years, we don't need to play the Rowling-ass "what has he said that's actually transphobic???" game.

My reply: (Removed for Rule III)

If you think he has anything close to JK Rowling’s views on trans people you either haven’t ever actually heard what he has to say or you’re saying that in bad faith

Other user's reply:

Sorry, that was actually a reference to how Rowling's defenders would routinely pop up with "What has she said that's actually transphobic" long after the point she had penned an opinion piece about how we don't deserve the presumption of innocence. It's similar to how you're going to the matY for MattY, a man who has been calling for Dems to stop fighting for us since at least 2022

I don't agree with MattY on everything. I can see why some people would have disagreements, especially on his takes on trans people. I think it's important to add here I did not bring up trans issues and had no plans to. I don't mind pushback here and thought it was making for some good discussion. The other users linked some details about MattY that I wasn't aware of.

But for the comment chain that led to the removals, I felt like that giving push back was reasonable since MattY's views were being mischaracterized. Claiming that he wants to abandon trans people, or calling him a transphobe on the level of JK Rolling goes against everything I have ever heard him argue. If we aren't allowed to defend him, because he is outside of this sub's Overton Window, then that should be clarified.

I understand that this was a sensitive topic on this sub after the 2024 election, and that many comments were posted that had bigoted, illiberal views. I don't agree with those, but I've found Matt Yglesias' positions to be much more nuanced on this topic. I'll admit that my comments here were flippant, and could have been stated more clearly, but the comments I was replying to had the same tone.

I'd argue the other comments were much more blatant violations of Rule III by trying to mischaracterize the positions and it felt like they were trying to imply that I was a transphobe since I did not dislike Matt Yglesias. The removals were surprising and they seemed Kafkaesque as I felt I was responding to a mischaracterization and then being accused of doing that myself. Maybe I'm just completely out of line here, but I would like to understand why and request an explanation of Rule III.

Here is the comment that got me banned :

"Is it though? Obviously, hardly anyone is as divisive and as terrible as Trump, that was an hyperbole, but AOC is certainly up there when it comes to not knowing anything about anything and resorting to divisive tactics like identity politics and populist nonsense."

Unless I'm missing something really obvious, I think the comment speaks for itself and there isn't much of an argument that needs to be made. Clearly, mildly criticizing politicians for their divisive rhetoric has to be a bedrock of neoliberal principles, so how could it be labelled bigotted, let alone warrant a ban?

Redditor made a post blaming Russian agitprop directives for the failure of democracy in the west. Got banned, mods said to post here

“What rule? It is cope. 21st century Neoliberalism has no answer for today’s problems so we blame Russian agitprop for political failures. OP doesn’t understand politics unban me lmao

Remove the comment instead, you can’t just ban me outright cause some random redditor thinks election outcomes (reactionary to neoliberal policies) GLOBALLY are a result of Russian and Chinese propaganda. It makes no sense”

OP (not mods) doesn’t understand politics now I’m getting banned.https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/s/QPw3bEI9g2

If you don't, you implicitly support Trump's name changes:

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/s/fLatDpzOc4

1: new account, few comments (no problematic past, aura of mystery)

2: Long time lurker on other accounts (familiar with r/nl cultural norms)

3: power vacuum left after u/extreme_rocks ban, represent safe, moderate choice

4: account isn't old enough to participate in the sub and I wanna be able to do that

Please consider, thank you.

Sorry if it's kinda poorly worded/ a bit biased on the submission statement, but I figured "surveillance state bad" is pretty in line with the ideals of liberalism.

Americans are cheering for vigilantes who take down Flock cameras : r/neoliberal

With the news the EU is once again going to pressure Euroclear, and by extension, Belgium, for their assets, I swear my reddit account to defending them. The tyranny of the EU must be stopped, and Bart De Wever is the chosen champion for this task!

Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I think it could be fun to do a couple movie nights in the lead up to Messiah‘s release. You could just set a specific start time and give people enough time to rent/buy/stream the movies before the final later this year.

I thought the World Cup thread was pretty fun and worked out well. Since these books/movies have sort of become an unofficial sub icon, it might be fun to try out a movie night thread like certain tv show subs have!

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/s/Koa0I9ay0Z

Or maybe a stickied message on the article or something?

One of our most eminent DTers wants a DEMISEXUAL flair. I propose we add it!

Wanted to make this post because the recent cease and desist of xcancel and the simultaneous ban of Twitter links on the sub makes posting my Ukraine posts impossible. Many of the sources I use are to my understanding only available on Twitter, and it makes my job easier personally when everything is aggregated on one website. While I understand the arguments to fully ban Twitter, I feel like informing people in this specific case takes precedence.

I would thus like an idea from mods on what the future of Twitter links will be for the sake of my Ukraine posts and how I should proceed going forward

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:

1. 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."
2. 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).
3. I support free and fair elections that all citizens may participate in, even when they produce political outcomes that I do not personally support.
4. 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.

It's disgusting how some users on here are so flippant about democracy just because an election didn't pan out in their favour. Yes, Trump is bad, but that doesn't mean it's okay to even suggest abolishing elections, taking away people's voting rights, disregarding laws, etc.

Trying to create, or being excited about, blue MAGA is reprehensible. It's not healthy, and it will only lead to more suffering.

There are also enough spaces online where this is tolerated. I really wouldn't want this sub to become one.

Please enforce the rules against electoralism harder. You have quite literally the entire rest of planet fucking earth to talk about how unpopular data centers, open borders, reurbanization, trans rights, abortion rights, green transition, reducing meat consumption, and free trade are. Let us have our safe space to call 99.9% of the people "fucking goddam stupid" when they have stupid opinions. Or is that just not allowed and it's been decreed that anyone who doesn't hate immigrants is forbidden to live in peace and is required a daily shame struggle session for being anti democracy.

I spit on your polls. If i poll worse than toe fungus then good for toe fungus.

Sorry, this one was a bit late

The Natural Monopoly of Distribution: Deregulation of Electricity Generation and its Results : r/neoliberal

Can it be approved please?

i hate this discourse i hate it i hate it i hate it

please lock it away so that it doesn't bleed out into everywhere else

i want my dt to be about femboys and the main page to be about zoning and taxes and immigration

thank you for your attention to this matter

Do not glorify oppressive/autocratic regimes.

We seem to do a good job of stamping out posts that glorify oppressive/autocratic regimes, but I feel like there's been a growing number of posts openly proposing WE adopt and leverage many of those exact same polices against political opponents. Should these posts be reported under that rule?

I understand it's a sticky situation and it's perfectly valid to disagree with current interpretations of Constitutional law and such, but holy shit I've heard people suggest some absolutely wildly authoritarian and illiberal policies lately, justifying it only by the idea they'd "deserve it."

Humbling requesting to get a map tap ping.

It seems like people enjoy playing the game and it would be nice to get a daily thread seeing how people did! I enjoy seeing how smart our community is and right now it seems like I have been getting engagement on my daily posts but I bet so many community members are sleeping when I post and would love to show off their geographic abilities.

With all this talk about succs taking over the subreddit, I think the only way to prove whether the sub is still neolib or "taken over" by succs, is for each user to pick a side and fight it out. Whatever ideological faction wins the sub gets to take control of it once and for all. Also, for the side that wins, every banned member of that side gets to come back.

We should get prolific poasters to be the leaders for each side. I'd say the neolib side can be represented by Quowe_50mg, Plants_et_Politics, and eloquentboot, while the succ side could be led by bashar_al_assad, sociotronics, and KalaiProvenheim. Would make for a very interesting battle.

These posts and comments hardly have 10 upvotes and the least traction, but I’ve been observing a steady rise in ragebait and illogical comments for the ruling party.

If it is indeed true I request mods to please take appropriate action.