AskHistorians is not like r/history, r/askhistory, or r/askreddit. We value quality of answers over quantity, and actively work to weed out answers which are incorrect, incomplete, jokes, or which degenerate into offensive tirades, soapboxing, or namecalling. To this end, we have rules that we implement rigorously, a large base of flaired users who are familiar with both their subject area and the rules of the subreddit, and a dedicated and active moderation team which work around the clock (and around the globe) to keep the subreddit going and make it better. We have a fairly healthy FAQ which we work to keep up to date and regularly work to recognize great answers and the users who post them. We host AMAs with experts in the field, and often work with users to help them find answers.

Not every question gets answered. Many superfluous or negative comments are removed, as are answers which don't meet our standards - we look for more than links to wikipedia or pop history videos on youtube. If that's the sort of thing you're looking for, there are other subreddits; and for many specialist subjects, there are great subreddis like r/askanthropology which might have better answers than we have for questions that fall within their purview.

At AskHistorians, we want to provide better answers. We can't answer every question. Some questions which get many upvotes very quickly attract a lot of attention, and the mods have to remove a great deal of superfluous comments. But if there is an answer, you can pretty much guarantee it meets our standards, and is better than you can get just by googling the same question, or reading a couple pages on wikipedia.

Ultimately, you're going to have to ask yourself the following: Which answer(s) would you rather read?

For the recent question of: What were the reactions to Japanese internment when it was happening?

Thanks to u/sakuraxatsume, we have this interesting and informative response:

Generally speaking, as far as we can tell anyway, the public were supportive of the idea of Japanese -American internment. There had been a long history of prejudice and suspicious towards Japanese immigrants - California in particular was notorious for this fact, and had numerous anti-Japanese organisations, such as the 'Japanese Exclusion League'. They successfully campaigned for the signing of the Alien Land Law which targeted any Japanese-American living in California who wanted to own land. Historians such as Alice Yang Murray and Roger Daniels have argued in their own works that the Japanese Internment was simply a culmination in the decades long prejudice that was "fuelled by economic competition and racial stereotypes".

During the period of internment, flags and posters proclaiming areas as "whites only'' and telling "Japs to keep out" were all too common during this period. You didn't really see any public backlash from White Americans, as they saw Japanese immigrants as the traitors who had brought about the attack on Pearl Harbor, and numerous community leaders who had been placed under surveillance were accused of giving information to the Japanese army.

(for full text use link in question)

Or, thanks to u/Erusian, who proves to us you don't have to have just one answer that works:

Originally, in December 1941, the public was supportive of the Japanese, especially of citizens. This lasted for about a month or two when public opinion slowly turned. In particular, the Robertson Report came out and the Niihau Incident was investigated and publicized. The former found evidence of intelligence gathering aided by the local Japanese populations. The latter was an incident in which two Japanese Americans attacked other Americans to aid the escape of a downed Imperial Japanese pilot. Absent racism, these incidents would have justly led to treason charges against those directly involved. It might have justified a program similar to German and Italian internment, where specific individuals were brought before judicial hearings and interned with due process.

Instead, partly due to panic and partly due to racism, support for general internment grew. The majority of the population rejected explicitly racist arguments (though they got some voice in the press). Still, a small but vocal minority said them openly and there's little other explanation for the disparate treatment. Likewise, the Japanese-Americans themselves reported increasing amounts of discrimination and racist attacks. Some newspapers even published guides on how to tell the Japanese from other Asians so people could direct their racism properly.

(for full text use link in question)

Or, thanks to [REMOVED], we have this (which doesn't answer the question):

For what I understand children were not ripped away from their parents like is happening now.. so trump has managed to make Japanese interment camps look good in comparison

Or, thanks to [REMOVED], we have this (which does try to answer but is a 'bit' lacking):

It was probably popular, but no survey on the program itself seems to have been conducted (at least, Public Opinion Quarterly's roundups of scientific polls didn't include any such question). The closest thing we have is a December 1942 survey which asked Americans what they thought should happen to the internees after the war. Even in that context, only 35% would allow all of them to return -- and the number was smaller among those living on the West Coast.

Source: Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring 1943, p. 177.

I don't know which you prefer, but I like the first two more, which is what r/AskHistorians strives to provide. If you don't mind, or prefer, the others, then there are other subreddits out there that you are more than welcome to browse. The seemingly extreme moderation is necessary to create the superb reputation AskHistorians has...and the community has at times, said it is "too lenient"