Moderators banning/censoring people arent oppressors violating your rights; they are customer service representatives curating the space for their intended costomers. All this to say, I see Karen.

[email protected]

If elon musk can be a "business man" so can you.

[email protected]

Mods aren't taking the hippocraric oath.

[email protected]

Sounds like I was doing customer service before you were born.

[email protected]

So, purely hypothetically, you would be fine with a curator deleting / omitting a fact because it goes against the narrative they are driving?

Interesting… personally I’d before to read a truth I disliked than to continue believing erroneous information; but that’s just me.

[email protected]

If you trust this person to tell you, and everybody else here, how to speak then either your speech is worthless to you or this conversation is worthless to you.

[email protected]

And sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

What do you do when that happens? What guides do you look to?

[email protected]

Influence, narrative-control, hurting the other tribe, control over a little domain. Those are good pay for some people.

[email protected]

But if they're saying the wrong stuff then I get to hit them with my modhammer. Right?

[email protected]

So you want to shape us.

How about just letting us talk?

[email protected]

be in the community but secretly ...

Oh that will work out just fine.

[email protected]

I'm not a mod

[email protected]

Disregarding the power of "influence" in the modern day is so absurd, honestly.

[email protected]

Did you just call me stupid! O_o you heartless beast.

[email protected]

Most conversations on the internet are worthless or I would even attribute negative value to many of them.

[email protected]

I'm fine with it, but me personally, am also fine leaving communities when they have stopped being useful and become belligerent, like you're describing.

[email protected]

But it's a very good guideline for people who, like moderators, have power and imperfect understanding. It's saying, "when in doubt, err on the side of least possible harm". So that's a good guide. Right?

[email protected]

What if they got off topic. What would happen?

[email protected]

Generally yes, but I feel a lot of people will assume their grievance is some sort of gray area that needs this type of consideration when it's most likely not.

[email protected]

here, how to speak then

You missed a closing delimiter on the subclause. Is that still acceptable speech for you?

[email protected]

Do we count 'nametag' jobs of the late '80s? If so, then I'm in!