I can see your point about detailed specific defining of controversial topics, but guidelines to set expectations are possible. No politics, no hateful or abusive posts, etc. Its been done before.

I've seen moderator actions on here where people were warned for what amounted to correcting false information under the eschew flamebait rule, like they should have known and let false information stand uncontested. Not just warned verbally, but downvoted too, which has a cost on keeping any registered account active. Too many downvotes prevents karma buildup for extended periods or gets your account banned.

You could post guidelines on topics that are unacceptable. Other places have, you set the expectation and remove the people who don't follow it.

> We don't moderate just one side, and if you think we do, I suggest you track my moderation comments more closely.

I can see your point if you only consider the direct effects of moderation acts, but your moderation system doesn't primarily use strategies of direct moderation. Its primarily indirect by structure. Direct moderation requires consistent guidelines, uniquely specific, and follow rational principles and method. Indirect is about inspiring repression and fear.

You seem to neglect the indirect but prominent chilling effects caused by the overall use of an anaconda in the chandelier strategy, where the lack of a source of truth creates an echo chamber effect from any action you signal even if its unintentional, gets silenced and those discussing it punished.

This is a common structure used under repressive regimes by design for its network and fear effects, which touch on subject matter from Robert Lifton's and Joost Meerloo's work on the totalitarian state and mind, don't worry I won't be going further into this subject matter than this.

A sound rational community is largely defined by its capability to analyse the merits of a discussion containing disagreement, without threats of retribution or cost being imposed for expressing dissenting opinion or discussion that may be unfavorable (so long as its not abusive or destructive).

In fact disagreement is expected before agreement in such valuable discussions, and when allowed the process elevates both parties understanding even when an impasse is reached.

This is not the same in collectivist repressive communities, any disagreement is an attack on the group, where the person expressing such is an enemy to coerce, impose cost, be it personal or in more tangible terms.

In such systems a privileged agent signals, and thus controls, and the mob takes care of the rest. It always changes in unknowable ways ahead of time, and its a crazymaking spiral of guessing and reading tea leaves.

The rules in such cases are designed with the intent that they be broken, so they can be applied arbitrarily, and it turns into a race to the bottom with a spiral of diminishment.

As a moderator, when you signal to the community ambiguously that some things or views are breaking the rules without being uniquely specific, any point of view following similar lines regardless of rational soundness or validity can no longer be discussed without fear of retribution.

The guy had religious overtones, but indoctrination, is a real thing and worth of discussion with regards to childlessness, especially when the alternative of no discussion in this context is self-extinction of humanity. Birthrate replacement is 2.1, we are at 1.44 if I'm up to date on the metrics. Within two generations (40 years) we'd lose roughly 66% of the current population, and its still decreasing.

How many people are talking or commenting about indoctration or anything about that article now? No one. How many commented after you posted? No one.

That's how these repressive structures work, they operate indirectly so the person signaling can plausibly say we don't do this, when the mechanics of the structures in-place do this for them. Its misleading and could be construed as deceitful if one discarded goodfaith.

Its an inherent part of the insidiousness of such structures.

No one commented after because of the fear of retribution, not even to correct omissions made by that article.

You may not be you doing the extended punishing on the moderation side, but the people who you've signaled to are, and they do punish like any thuggish collective.

Point in case, even me drawing your attention to this to have an honest conversation with you and pointing out these observations in a non-combative way has already cost my account negatively. According to the karma score shown on my client, I'm down 5 points, or 8% of what would be needed to ban my account, for letting you know about a problem that you seem to have overlooked.

How can you ever get objective feedback to know about a problem from anyone, if it costs those same people dearly to give it to you.

Anyone who doesn't agree, even expressed marginally based on your signaling gets downvoted or squelched which is a debit on their karma bank. How can you talk about anything in such environments?

When this uses up the karma bank and goes too far, your systems exclude those people from the community by banning them, its all indirect, but the outcomes reflect the insidious design. Few upvote even thoughtful posts unless their is universal agreement.

These are problems that destroy community, and while it may seem like things are working fine right now. These type of systems tend to have a hallowing out effect where you don't notice the pitfalls eating away underneath undermining the structural integrity until after its too late to do anything.

A system is what a system actually does, not what people claim or intend it to do.