Yes. I just don't get why its accepted or somehow morally ok to silently manage information for others. The key word is: 'silently'. A mod should be able to

Yes. I just don't get why its accepted or somehow morally ok to silently manage information for others. The key word is: 'silently'. A mod should be able to manage the conversation, kick people off, delete comments etc, fine - but there should be a note to indicate how whatever bit was impacted. Otherwise, moderators are able to act like gods over a conversation or a forum, accountable to no one. Well, I suppose they will have to judge themselves, but I don't think they are really going to take themselves to task! If people are acting in good faith, they may present information that may be true AND unpleasant to accept or not per consensus opinion. The scientific method should accept the various viewpoints and converge to a better picture of reality. But that can't happen if dissenting voices are closed down. It always surprises me that scientific thinkers, such as there are on this site, are not strongly in support of lots of voices. I don't mean that HN should become a popularity contest or something, but that honest sharing of curiosity and personal experience should be encouraged, not silenced. Seriously, apart from some crap sites (eg 4chan), where can the 'unthinkable' be raised and discussed sensibly nowadays? I don't think there is anywhere.