| ▲ | perching_aix 2 days ago |
| Is that a moderation issue? Because to me that's more of a system / culture issue. You can't argue in people's stead. If most dissenting commentary is hurtful, inciteful, manipulative, generally demagogue, etc., it's going to get culled, and you get a situation where "dissent isn't thriving". |
|
| ▲ | Teever 2 days ago | parent [-] |
| Moderation drives culture and should in the very least offset the worst tendencies of culture. Otherwise, what exactly is moderation for? |
| |
| ▲ | perching_aix 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Moderation does participate in the culture of course, but I disagree that it would drive it necessarily. You can only do so much by reminding people to align with the posting guidelines and removing ill fitting posts and individuals. | | |
| ▲ | Teever 2 days ago | parent [-] | | This place would look like 4chan if it wasn't for the moderation. Moderation absolutely drives the culture, by setting a tone that drives away certain users while attracting others. In other words what ever issues a site has are inherently due to moderation whether it be a choice on the part the moderators or a lack of resources to moderate as they would like to. | | |
| ▲ | perching_aix 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't think we're actually disagreeing. Yes, moderation is key, but ultimately people post the content. As you say, it's a matter of attraction. But if the target group of attraction is empty, there's no amount of moderation that can help that. |
|
|
|
