Think of moderators as shop owners, they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
When you enter their shop you accept their authority and the fact that you can be thrown out at any point with any explanation.
When you enter their shop you accept their authority and the fact that you can be thrown out at any point with any explanation.
A shop owner has an interest to having you as customer because it directly increases their sales. A Reddit mod doesn't protect commercial interests. In both cases though if your presence allows for opportunity, you'll remain welcome, within social rules of course (HN example [1]). Similar social rules apply on the Internet. I see the Internet as small religious "enclaves". Certain viewpoints are going to be unwelcome or downright impossible to argue otherwise (they differ per "enclave"). For example, if I go to a religious forum or church to defend my -ism (atheism or agnosticism) I likely get banned as troll even if I am very serious and kind. Why? It goes against premises that group -as being part of that- agrees upon. If you go to "A small subreddit inhabited by funky "spiritual" types." those premises also exist, even if they're not logical to you or go against scientific consensus or certain common razors.
It's also still not right.
> It's also still not right.
No, it is not right, but just like a shop-owner, a forum moderator will not ban you randomly because she has an interest running a popular forum.
If one gets banned from a community(online or not), in most cases it's because they didn't adhere to the written or unwritten laws of the community, or pissed off someone high in the pecking order. Communities are not democracies, but my guess is that even if they were, a big majority of those who get banned would be ostracized anyway.
Political opinions, skin color, sexual orientation, what they had for breakfast?