Hi Cotton, From my own perspective, it is that the mission of the site be clear; and then as much as possible that the moderation be carried out consistent with the mission.
I say this from my own interest in the potential of the Internet, our human connections with each other, and how fruitful that might possibly be in the social evolution of humankind.
* * * (Whew...I made a kinda heavy answer out of that didn't I? Not sure this is even what you were looking for...)
Censorship...or lack thereof As in the real world, people express their opinions and engage in communicative intercourse more freely and more often when their freedom to do so is not stomped on by the supreme powers. That does not mean people should be allowed to be abusive to one another or engage in illegal activities, but one person's ass is a donkey while to another, it may be their buttocks.
As a moderator, I am often torn about what I believe is OK and what the site rules allow. A site may define what is or is not allowed because it is a private entity and as such, does not have to follow the rights and freedoms of all people to express themselves and the site does the right to do as they wish....
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 17, 2017 3:28 PM MDT
Starting from the premise that its the owners train set and can be run in any reason they want ... To be successful there has to be some flex ... A few months back I was censored because I said to a friend here "you lucky bitch" in response to some good news she shared. I think that was over the top... Taken totally out of context ... A few days back I decided to test the waters with a question on dogs, using the term bitch for the female .... There were no issues, in fact the moderator who censored me the first time answered within the question. My point is this ... It's obviously not the word used that triggered the original censoring, it's the context .. but when only one person gets to decide on how to interpret the context then there is a danger of one person holding great sway over the many ... Power corrupts etc ... In no way am I advocating open slather, and posts with the intent of demeaning of hurting anyone should be removed ... But I don't think the current system is without it's faults ...
Well...I didn't want to get into specifics of this particular site, and yes...that word is not allowed.
Context is everything. Again, I don't want to go into things "site specific" in open form :) I hope you understand and appreciate why. I have not removed what you wrote because of the context which you put your comments in .
I do and I appreciate that ... It's a one coffee answer so it trambles a bit sorry .. my point is this ... You have, in my mind, read it, thought about it in the context in which it was used and acted appropriately ... My earlier censored usage was treated differently by a different mod ... And you can see where this is going ... I don't intend to put you on the spot here, that's not my idea ... Thanks for your reply :)
For some it seems an over abundance of trite Trump questions.
The real measure is the user base and unchained free-speech but that has been a lost concept in the recent history of the interwebs so you got to take what's still available. internet culture took a dark and sad turn in recent years with the rise of twitter and Facebook style sites.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at June 12, 2017 3:26 AM MDT
Yes..people have the option to ignore "Trump" stuff which I think we would all find preferable to limiting or cutting them out.. I get it...some hate it, but once you open that door, other things will also go out with it.
FB has turned an ugly corner recently and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Twitter is still a little flexible when it comes to what you can and cannot say.
That may well be true but it's the new culture of thin skinned people who are the problem and these sites encourage those types over the rest. That's the thing. There aren't enough mods on these sites who are willing to say " pull your head up and put your big people pants on" instead pandering to the recreationally offended with " there there. We will handle them for you".
Too many people act like there is an inherent right to not be offended or see, read, hear things that aren't comfortable to them. The problem is with them, not a lack of censorship. Too many people are stepping into boxing rings and then complaining that people punch too hard.
"pull your head up and put your big people pants on" lol
True... I like to think that I am one of those mods.
I agree with everything you said. I find that people who are quick to complain about others being "thin skinned" are sometimes the first to run to "mama"
So...IMHO, if someone wants to say something douchey, then they better be prepared for someone to comeback at them equally or substantially more douchey.
Benedict Arnold 