Well, whenever we enter an evidence war like this we must go back to the old standard. The burden of proof is on the accuser. It has to be. If the burden of pro

Well, whenever we enter an evidence war like this we must go back to the old standard. The burden of proof is on the accuser. It has to be. If the burden of proof is always on the defendant, all you need is 30 people making accusations and it becomes impossible to defend against. It's basically a legal DDOS. Also, i think every logical person can see that its much much easier to provide a single example of a lack of moderation than it is nebulous "prove you have moderation". What kind of standard do you have for that and how do we know you're not going to shift the goalpost the moment they bring you what you ask for. An example is an example is an example. Provide your proof or cease accusations. I've seen this argument many times in my country, always used to shut down free expression and enforce repression. There's great books and videos on logical fallacies out there