3 ms·

> There you go, anti-misinformation rules being used to delete inconvenient discussion. ... or possibly misinformation. We haven't seen the thread, so we don't

> There you go, anti-misinformation rules being used to delete inconvenient discussion. ... or possibly misinformation. We haven't seen the thread, so we don't know, do we?

agoodthrowaway 7y ago
I think the GP is suggesting that as soon as you are moderating speech, a powerful moderating authority can quickly lose trust by deleting discussions. Or it could be that the moderating authority already is untrusted so deletions legitimate or not are always suspect.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  The GP is very explicitly saying that the rules are being used to delete the discussion because it is inconvenient: > anti-misinformation rules being used to delete inconvenient discussion But we don't actually know if that's why it was deleted. It's a presumption on whatshisface's part.
  - agoodthrowaway 7y ago
    I think you’ve missed the point now twice. It’s the lack of trust that is the issue here that leads to that assumption. The lack of trust is the fault of the moderator not of the GP.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
      > I think you’ve missed the point now twice. I've only responded once so I don't know how you figure I missed the point twice. > It’s the lack of trust that is the issue here that leads to that assumption. The top poster made a claim of fact, that anti-misinformation rules were used as a front to silence criticism. Whether that fact is true or not is the point I'm interested in. I get that you're interested in something else, but I'm not. You get to be interested in what you want, but you don't get to claim that the top poster said something other than what they did. > The lack of trust is the fault of the moderator not of the GP. Big assumption. If the moderator has acted in good faith and whatshisface still doesn't trust them, that may say more about whatshisface than the moderator.
      - agoodthrowaway 7y ago
        Sorry but the assumption is on on your part. I’m sorry you can’t see that.
torhorway 7y ago
I saw the post in question. The person claimed that the mountain view office was a hotbed of infection and multiple people had already been infected from having to go to work. In reality the office has 0 infections.
- nokcha 7y ago
  >In reality the office has 0 infections. How would you know this? Many infected people are asymptomatic for over a week, and the US generally isn't testing asymptomatic people unless they were in close contact with a known infected person. (I'm saying this just as reminder that people would do well to practice social distancing even if there is no evidence that specific persons are infected. I'm not trying to justify whoever it was who allegedly posted baseless claims to the forum.)

> There you go, anti-misinformation rules being used to delete inconvenient discussion. ... or possibly misinformation. We haven't seen the thread, so we don't know, do we?

agoodthrowaway 7y ago

I think the GP is suggesting that as soon as you are moderating speech, a powerful moderating authority can quickly lose trust by deleting discussions. Or it could be that the moderating authority already is untrusted so deletions legitimate or not are always suspect.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
The GP is very explicitly saying that the rules are being used to delete the discussion because it is inconvenient: > anti-misinformation rules being used to delete inconvenient discussion But we don't actually know if that's why it was deleted. It's a presumption on whatshisface's part.
- agoodthrowaway 7y ago
  I think you’ve missed the point now twice. It’s the lack of trust that is the issue here that leads to that assumption. The lack of trust is the fault of the moderator not of the GP.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    > I think you’ve missed the point now twice. I've only responded once so I don't know how you figure I missed the point twice. > It’s the lack of trust that is the issue here that leads to that assumption. The top poster made a claim of fact, that anti-misinformation rules were used as a front to silence criticism. Whether that fact is true or not is the point I'm interested in. I get that you're interested in something else, but I'm not. You get to be interested in what you want, but you don't get to claim that the top poster said something other than what they did. > The lack of trust is the fault of the moderator not of the GP. Big assumption. If the moderator has acted in good faith and whatshisface still doesn't trust them, that may say more about whatshisface than the moderator.
    - agoodthrowaway 7y ago
      Sorry but the assumption is on on your part. I’m sorry you can’t see that.

torhorway 7y ago

I saw the post in question. The person claimed that the mountain view office was a hotbed of infection and multiple people had already been infected from having to go to work. In reality the office has 0 infections.

nokcha 7y ago
>In reality the office has 0 infections. How would you know this? Many infected people are asymptomatic for over a week, and the US generally isn't testing asymptomatic people unless they were in close contact with a known infected person. (I'm saying this just as reminder that people would do well to practice social distancing even if there is no evidence that specific persons are infected. I'm not trying to justify whoever it was who allegedly posted baseless claims to the forum.)