Biased and unclear moderation.

steeleagle70 said:Taking down posts from both sides isn't censorship since it applies to everyone. It's just moderation.
Give me a break. We all have those moments where we think our deleted post was actually brilliant and essential.

But much like dealing with a bad referee in a game, anyone can complain about being deleted if they think they were right...

I don't view deletion as censorship; keeping topics organized is actually a good thing, even when my own posts get nuked. 🙂

So where exactly is the middle ground ☕

neonviper92 said:But then where on earth is the heart of the ☕

you get it right after you wipe 😁

steeleagle70 said:you get it after deleting 😁

The question remains: what else gets deleted? Everything automatically shifts to one side.☕

steeleagle70 said:Removing content from either the left or the right shouldn't be labeled as censorship, given that posts from all political spectrums are being removed. This is simply what we call moderation.
I suppose we have all experienced those moments where we feel our deleted post was actually quite profound or significant.

However, much like when dealing with a faulty court ruling, one can certainly appeal a deletion if they truly believe they were in the right...

I am not attempting to justify deletions themselves, but I believe the active moderation of these threads is more than commendable, even on those occasions when my own contributions are swept away. 🙂

Oh, please, just go back to the very beginning of the thread list and look at all the locked topics filled with nothing but empty promises and hollow excuses...

steeleagle70 said:Why would you assume they’re only scrubbing posts targeting you specifically, or just your side of the aisle? They're cleaning house for everyone; you just don't see the scale of it. For instance, I can't even tell how many of my own posts have been wiped, but obviously, you only see what happens to your own stuff.

Of course, I'm not even counting the posts that were basically cardboard at this point.

Look, I’m talking about democracy here, though I’ll admit moderators are just human beings.

If all the moderators on the Politics board happen to be huge fans of Obama, they’re going to unconsciously defend him like he's their own kid.
My point is simply that the Prime Minister of the US and the President of the US hold equal weight in my eyes, yet the moderators don't treat them with that same parity (even if they should).

They always fall back on those tired, demagogic excuses—claiming these people chose to be public figures, so they deserve the heat, while simultaneously practicing censorship.

Either protect the President of the US just as much as the Prime Minister of the US, or let people praise and trash both of them equally.

That's all.

I'm a stickler for the rules.

Jose Barrett said:Listen, I am discussing the principles of democracy, while fully acknowledging that moderators are merely human beings.

If all the moderators on this Politics forum harbor an unconscious devotion to Obama, they will inevitably defend him with a maternal instinct that borders on the irrational.
My sole intention is to point out that, in my view, the roles of the Prime Minister of the US and the President of the US carry equal weight, yet the moderators fail to treat them with the same level of impartiality—though they truly ought to.

They constantly resort to these rather demagogic excuses, claiming that since these leaders chose to enter the public eye, they deserve whatever criticism comes their way, all while simultaneously practicing blatant censorship.

One should either protect the President of the US just as fiercely as the Prime Minister of the US, or simply allow both to be praised and criticized with absolute equality.

That is all I am asking.

I am a man who believes in the letter of the law.

At least you are making an honest effort, which is more than can be said for the moderators.
Even Stazić has been pushed right to the edge of Politics.

How exactly do you think the Politics mods should be "protecting" the Prime Minister of the US? You've got threads on Obama and Condoleezza Rice where people are totally free to share their takes on them—no matter how harsh—as long as they play by the rules of the Forum and Politics.

Daniel Ward87

Daniel Ward87 said:So how exactly do you think the moderators on The New York Times should be "protecting" the President? There are threads about Joe Biden just like there are threads about Kamala Harris, and people are totally free to say whatever they want about them in those threads, as long as they follow the rules of the World Economic Forum and The New York Times.

Honestly, I think everything's already been said. I checked out what's happening over on The New York Times and I really can't find anything else to complain about regarding the moderators there The New York Times.