Yes and requiring moderation on internet forums is not one of them. It will stop 0.00001% of cases, while growing malpolicing (especially non useful police who demand more mircrojustice to keep their comfy pay coming in) proportionally with it.
This reminds me of HN. You get banned if you say a bad word. You get banned eventually no matter what unless you're a white collar self censored silicon valley drone with ultra-safe opinions like "the C language should be deprecated after a mere 70 years". You get rate limited if you get too many downvotes in the given time slot. Random IPs are blocked for no reason and the login screen is just a blank page. You get shadowbanned so you don't even know you're banned. All for basically nothing, as HN is basically like 2000s forums but with slightly better discourse and consistency of moderation (and worse in other ways).
This idea that we should have some sort of epidemiologically correct moderation policy on the internet is also bullshit. Moderation on the internet started off as, annoying, childish, 40 year old sysadmins who ban anyone they don't like, SJWs who ban anyone who is "the enemy", right wing equivalent of SJWs who do the same thing, rule fetishists (people in the UK who think insulting the queen or showing the middle finger should be illegal), etc. The idea started off with these selfish / idiotic reasons. Once questioned, they are forced into a corner where they can only rationalize moderation as an epidemiological tool. "Yeah, if we just delete these 1 million posts it's a net gain".
The only reason lack of moderation on big copmany's websites even come up is because they're big companies and they have egg on their face for any slight mishap (or what public perceives as a mishap). It's the most stupid fucking shit.
unixbane|3 years ago
This reminds me of HN. You get banned if you say a bad word. You get banned eventually no matter what unless you're a white collar self censored silicon valley drone with ultra-safe opinions like "the C language should be deprecated after a mere 70 years". You get rate limited if you get too many downvotes in the given time slot. Random IPs are blocked for no reason and the login screen is just a blank page. You get shadowbanned so you don't even know you're banned. All for basically nothing, as HN is basically like 2000s forums but with slightly better discourse and consistency of moderation (and worse in other ways).
This idea that we should have some sort of epidemiologically correct moderation policy on the internet is also bullshit. Moderation on the internet started off as, annoying, childish, 40 year old sysadmins who ban anyone they don't like, SJWs who ban anyone who is "the enemy", right wing equivalent of SJWs who do the same thing, rule fetishists (people in the UK who think insulting the queen or showing the middle finger should be illegal), etc. The idea started off with these selfish / idiotic reasons. Once questioned, they are forced into a corner where they can only rationalize moderation as an epidemiological tool. "Yeah, if we just delete these 1 million posts it's a net gain".
The only reason lack of moderation on big copmany's websites even come up is because they're big companies and they have egg on their face for any slight mishap (or what public perceives as a mishap). It's the most stupid fucking shit.