You come here and complain about how things are handled all without seeming to bother to see how fairly it is moderated here. I was simply pointing out the opposite end of the spectrum.
It wasn’t my intend to comment aggressively if it came off that way. But…
On .world, you get to speak your mind (or at least in the larger communities that are more organized) if only via a request to follow a few basic rules of civility. I never see mods removing comments or entire accounts because they don’t like the narrative, and for the record, I see a LOT of things reported that I disagree with, but don’t act on because they’re within the rules. And there’s probably a lot more than you know. But it will always seem biased from your perspective if you don’t know how or where to look.
And for the sake of debate, let’s try this:
if we are to divide the two sides and call .world a liberal instance, (which it seems is what you’re trying to do) then we must be fair to look at ml/Hexbear as the opposite side and consider the argument:
They will straight up BAN you for disagreeing with the narrative. Seemingly every day- I see arguments that in no way break the rules get removed. Some for reasons as bold as “Blue MAGA,” others for no reason at all.
So I’ll say again, if you think asking for a few simple rules to be followed is unfair. The door is all around you. And you’re free to use it. Though I’d rather you stay and keep the discussions going.
It’s okay that we disagree. Just remain within the same rules we all follow and we’re all going to be good.
I think it’s really funny that you claim all this when the top level comment is a clear account of the mods censoring comments that don’t fit the Liberal narrative.
And you are free to disagree. If you want to reword your comments with things like “I think” or “it appears to me as if” then no one would have a problem as this is merely your opinion, and opinions can’t be classified as misinformation and removed- as long as they remain civil.
But again, posturing and grandstanding with accusations that are at best a rearrangement of information is not debate in good faith.
This isn’t an argument, I am asking for clarification. I’m not trying to “win.” Which statements need an “I think” or “it appears to me as if?” Personally, it looks like I am being directly discriminated against, because other commenters get away with the same phrasing but with pro-Dem messages, I don’t see those phrases in every comment yet only few comments get removed, like mine.
I think this has gone beyond my point so I’ll just state that I don’t have any issue with requiring civility, I didn’t intend to imply anything like that or to take issue with moderation in general, sorry.
I specifically take issue with moderation that minimises and denies an issue that I’m extremely passionate about, but that’s it.
I don’t disagree with your points on the socialist instances, I’m not a socialist and I’m not on those instances, mine is even defederated from hexbear.
My intention was just to point out that the conversation around this issue has, in my experience, been largely a case of ad hominem (as this post literally is) rather than any well meaning good faith discussion.
Thank you. And again, my apologies if I came of as aggressive. We get accused of bias so often here and sometimes it really flies in the face of what we’re trying to do. Especially if you look at how it is elsewhere.
You come here and complain about how things are handled all without seeming to bother to see how fairly it is moderated here. I was simply pointing out the opposite end of the spectrum.
It wasn’t my intend to comment aggressively if it came off that way. But…
On .world, you get to speak your mind (or at least in the larger communities that are more organized) if only via a request to follow a few basic rules of civility. I never see mods removing comments or entire accounts because they don’t like the narrative, and for the record, I see a LOT of things reported that I disagree with, but don’t act on because they’re within the rules. And there’s probably a lot more than you know. But it will always seem biased from your perspective if you don’t know how or where to look.
And for the sake of debate, let’s try this:
if we are to divide the two sides and call .world a liberal instance, (which it seems is what you’re trying to do) then we must be fair to look at ml/Hexbear as the opposite side and consider the argument:
They will straight up BAN you for disagreeing with the narrative. Seemingly every day- I see arguments that in no way break the rules get removed. Some for reasons as bold as “Blue MAGA,” others for no reason at all.
So I’ll say again, if you think asking for a few simple rules to be followed is unfair. The door is all around you. And you’re free to use it. Though I’d rather you stay and keep the discussions going.
It’s okay that we disagree. Just remain within the same rules we all follow and we’re all going to be good.
I think it’s really funny that you claim all this when the top level comment is a clear account of the mods censoring comments that don’t fit the Liberal narrative.
Nothing is being censored. There’s a ton of pro-socialist memes and comments here, so don’t cast aspersions where there are none.
All are welcome to post if they remain within the rules. You are posting opinions as facts and that is why your comments were removed.
You’re posturing and grandstanding.
We removed posts/comments that do this regardless of which side they lean toward.
I clearly disagree.
Can you explain in more detail? Which opinions were postured as facts in a manner that breaks .world’s rules, and therefore worthy of removal?
And you are free to disagree. If you want to reword your comments with things like “I think” or “it appears to me as if” then no one would have a problem as this is merely your opinion, and opinions can’t be classified as misinformation and removed- as long as they remain civil.
But again, posturing and grandstanding with accusations that are at best a rearrangement of information is not debate in good faith.
I will not argue this further.
This isn’t an argument, I am asking for clarification. I’m not trying to “win.” Which statements need an “I think” or “it appears to me as if?” Personally, it looks like I am being directly discriminated against, because other commenters get away with the same phrasing but with pro-Dem messages, I don’t see those phrases in every comment yet only few comments get removed, like mine.
I will not argue this further.
Lol
I think this has gone beyond my point so I’ll just state that I don’t have any issue with requiring civility, I didn’t intend to imply anything like that or to take issue with moderation in general, sorry.
I specifically take issue with moderation that minimises and denies an issue that I’m extremely passionate about, but that’s it.
I don’t disagree with your points on the socialist instances, I’m not a socialist and I’m not on those instances, mine is even defederated from hexbear.
My intention was just to point out that the conversation around this issue has, in my experience, been largely a case of ad hominem (as this post literally is) rather than any well meaning good faith discussion.
Thank you. And again, my apologies if I came of as aggressive. We get accused of bias so often here and sometimes it really flies in the face of what we’re trying to do. Especially if you look at how it is elsewhere.
Thanks again.