Just putting this here cause I found it a good overview of a pretty confusing situation I had no prior knowledge about

  • Pussista@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Depends on your perspective I guess. The way I see it: Moderators are (partially) there to limit the spread of hate so if you are a hate spreader, you would thrive without moderation, but if you are a hate receiver, you’re better off when moderation rules are enforced.

    • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Hate spreaders need people to spread hate to, but people that are targeted by hate tend not to hang around in spaces where unrestrained hate is allowed.

    • taladar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Without moderators most spaces would be completely unusable due to spammers, trolls and others whose behavior and motivations have very little to do with their sexuality, politics, their skin tone or their religion.

      • eskimofry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        You’re trying to dismiss an assertion by submitting a superset of the assertion. Which is usually done to belittle or ignore the orginal point in the argument, which is that a majoirty of those pushing back against CoC also romanticize the old boys group of experts.

        • taladar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          The original point was to argue for CoC which is fine and can be done without antagonizing people with the tired old “white cis-het,…” nonsense in this context.