Comment on Asking for moderator Rooki's removal for misconduct

• mozz@mbin.grits.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  100%

  That's the funniest part to me. Rooki was extremely evenhanded about it.

  They posted misinformation, Rooki left it up but posted a counterpoint. They banned Rooki, Rooki didn't ban them in return, just restored the counterpoint and removed their ability to ban. At no point were any of their free speech rights interfered with in any way, and now they're all butthurt that they are no longer able to censor the admins on their own instance, in service of promoting animal abuse.

  Good luck guys. Like I say I would look at it as a learning experience about how the world works.

  source

  • breetai@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Some mods want echo chambers with false information.

    I don’t want a “truth” monitor but sometimes it needs to be done.

    source

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      It is different when real imminent harm to real organisms in the actual real world is involved

      If someone is posting that crystals will cure your cancer, or you can feed your baby honey to build its immune system, or vegan cat food is safe, it is a good admin’s job to curtail your free speech rights unless you can demonstrate pretty convincingly that you are not the wrong one (with more than “I KNOW bro, I’m vegan, so that means I’m right and stfu”).

      And doubly, triply, so if you are actively censoring people who are trying to debunk your misinformation through exercise of their own free speech.

      source