zlacker

>Strict moderation

I don't consider the moderation on this site to be strict at all?

It's tone police more than it is content police. HN continually lets comments and statements go completely unquestioned, and in some cases actively supports view points, that are objectively wrong in the most vanilla fashion all because it was said in the correct manner.

>>whiteo+(OP)
And what's your point? You'd prefer the site take the more active role required to moderate based on content – which ostensibly includes opinions, and not just objective facts – rather than enforcing general civility?

>>whiteo+(OP)
Are you suggesting that the moderators should make decisions about what is objectively wrong or right? Because that would be a lot of work for them and they would probably get it wrong.

When it comes to the content, we (the commenters) are the ones responsible for holding each other accountable.

>>whiteo+(OP)
Tone is important. Nobody was ever convinced by being screamed at. People who argue against tone policing are mostly just using that as a way to shut down their opponents.

>>whiteo+(OP)
This is a good point. Many people on this website have learnt to "dog-whistle" as an adaptation strategy. It doesn't change the substance.