The role of the site admins moderating
- Thread starter captain
- Start date
TallTom
Registered
Cap. The way this is worded is a little slanted.
Should a moderator be able to remove someone they don't agree with is sort of unfair. If a member has not broken any rules but the moderator just doesn't like it, its an unfair position of power given a person for "personal" views instead of site rules they are supposed to be enforcing without bias
For instance. If a moderator doesn't like an opposing political view, they can at will censor that view because they don't personally like it, is the way I read the question. Doesn't have to violate any rules at all
We have a diverse range of people here. They should have a presence here where they can share their views.
We all have the individual ability to block anyone we like here. I'll let anyone that wants to hear them, hear them.
Should a moderator be able to remove someone they don't agree with is sort of unfair. If a member has not broken any rules but the moderator just doesn't like it, its an unfair position of power given a person for "personal" views instead of site rules they are supposed to be enforcing without bias
For instance. If a moderator doesn't like an opposing political view, they can at will censor that view because they don't personally like it, is the way I read the question. Doesn't have to violate any rules at all
We have a diverse range of people here. They should have a presence here where they can share their views.
We all have the individual ability to block anyone we like here. I'll let anyone that wants to hear them, hear them.
1A doesn’t apply to privately owned forums like this.
Follow the rules or don’t.
Follow the rules or don’t.
bigoltool
Registered
We are all just guests here Cap. This is absolutely not a case of "Mi casa es su casa"! Mainstream Social Media has ruined the internet in this respect. People think they can get behind their keyboard/cloak of invincibility, and say whatever they want, to whomever they want, whenever they want without ramifications now due to this. SMH! 
I am getting you guys involved in some of the decision making that I have to deal with every single day..
A balanced forum you would think would appreciate good conversation about issues and just stuff in a respectable way. However the question that I really have is it do the admins have the authority to do it without legal ramifications.... Does any admin have to explain anything to anyone by law as it stands today in your opinion... I can see where you would think that a good reason would help soften the blow and not feel like you were being suppressed, but can you really be suppressed in a place you actually hold no legal rights?
TallTom
Registered
Well a law as in some legal statute is a framework you have to exist in or be subjected to legal action. Such as an organized group trying to say bomb something. That I would think is a statutory constraint rather than site rules. They would override.
But I see your point to an extent that since when should a moderator have to have a quasi legal background to protect your site.
Freedom of speech is protected by anything that is a public asset. This isn't. Private places, which this is, can make it obvious what is acceptable to say or not.
Like I said before, I just place the repeated asswipes on ignore. Somebody else can like them all they like.
I remember not liking Brent here. He was just a crude power trip cop. That talked down to others a lot. I just ignored the dude. He had his followers. Til he sold a chyttie bike to Ali. Until then nobody seemed to think he was a bad actor.
Then Ali sort of cooked his own goose. LOL
So there is a whole lot more... There are people that want me to take down post based on an experience or story because the person that posted it doesn't like them or their product etc... I have had people tell me that we are part of the problem in the country with history and disinformation.. Perspective is everything, what we are seeing is that people think they always have the high moral ground and sometimes they might be right and wrong at the same time, that is where conversation comes into play...
In the end I will shut this site off the first second 230 gets changed...
In the end I will shut this site off the first second 230 gets changed...
JeffSyh
Registered
This is your child, your property you are free to do as you please... don't let anyone twist your arm to think differently. I could only imagine the money you hemorage to keep this place open and I'm grateful for it and grateful for all the wonderful people I've met here and the infromation I've gained doesn't have a dollar amount attached to it!
I've read older posts and I feel its fairly tame now but I'm new so who knows.
I've read older posts and I feel its fairly tame now but I'm new so who knows.
TallTom
Registered
Or you could just keep it bike only topics. But as you discovered, your traffic goes way down and you can't keep the lights on.
Yeah I'm starting to see your dilemma. Id shut my site down before I become legally liable for people that used it. It's the new world we live in.
I was all for what Elon was going to do to Twitter. Until he did the same nonsense he said he was against. You can no longer run a private entity how you wish to in this country.
Macro and micro ...
What I'm suggesting is that the entity's vision for commerce should inform the entity's politics.
Sure you can, as long as you don't violate anyone's rights, which sounds like politics, but this discussion is one of commerce. Admin can run this site anyway they wish, sure, but at what cost? One may risk losing clientele by promoting a different type of content (in this case, discussion) but also likely that a different content attracts new clientele.
What I'm suggesting is that the entity's vision for commerce should inform the entity's politics.
TallTom
Registered
So give us an example of how a typed comment on a digital platform violates another person's rights?
For example, we've never met. What of my rights would you be able to take away from me? Even if we have met, and you might have some idea of my life, what rights would be able to be taken away by some content here?
This place is like any other platform. We are free to not read it's content. I don't look at say the Burger King portion. I don't own one or have any interest in it. But I'm sure they enjoy sharing that common discussion. If I see one on the road I'm not going to try and run them off the road.
Probably the biggest 2 request I get are to take something down because he is a racist or anti something ( opinion ) or we are passing on misinformation and are allowing the site to be used for hate ( perspective opinion ). If the govt steps in these won't be our decisions they will be fact and processes I'm afraid.
TallTom
Registered
I'm not trying to be obtuse. But how are these someone rights being violated? If I think someone is racist, who is at fault for taking away a right. Me for not having the right to say whatever illicited that response, or them having the opinion that makes me feel that way. Do I have some right to say they can't say something that makes me consider them a racist?
Cap by now you see it get weaponized. These people make livings calling people whatever name is the political buzzwords of the moment. How has that become a right? Is that being placed in some legislation.
Is it going to be lowed to be weaponized here?
Misinformation? Since when is this a right. We have had decades of misinformation. We should know how to use life skills to determine what we feel is misinformation vs just another version of valid information from a different origin or evolution.
- Language as they deem offensive or vulgar - Yuup
- Troublesome Topics - Lock em down or remove
- Disagreeing perspective - Respective & complies with the house rules OK (See question 2)
- Attitude of poster - See 2-3
- Frequency of posting - See 1-4
Similar threads
