2 ms·
It's sort of a form of the paradox of tolerance. If there is no moderation, the least pleasant/most abrasive people will drag the quality of discussion down, an
by asddubs 6y ago
It's sort of a form of the paradox of tolerance. If there is no moderation, the least pleasant/most abrasive people will drag the quality of discussion down, and drive everyone else away. That's not to say I agree with the conclusions of the author of the blog post
- nickthemagicman 6y agoModeration and censorship are radically different. Moderation is just to prevent spam and personal attacks and things that have no connection to the conversation. Censorship is manipulating the conversation by removing ideas that go against the conversation even if they are relevant, well sourced, and respectfully presented. Be sure not to get the two confused.
- bccdee 6y agoThe difference between censorship and moderation is entirely subjective. Censors always think they're moderators — that they're protecting the quality of the discourse rather than stifling ideas they dislike — because part of how they rationalize their dislike of those ideas is by believing that they harm the discussion.
- nickthemagicman 6y agoI think there may be some grey area but a moderator vs a censor are very different.