@adamdavidson @sab @froomkin That's not going to work on Mastodon. Other instance admins will object and block you. And, seriously, do you want to adopt both-siderism as a moderation policy? That's such a huge part of why the USA is in so much trouble; editors and publishers have been granting equal credibility to the radical-right Republican Party and the big tent Democratic Party.
@ravenonthill @adamdavidson @froomkin Adam is referring to a nontolerance for personal insults here. That doesn't mean you have to respect everyone's opinions as equally worthy - it just means you have to treat them as if they were made in good faith.
Disagreements are welcome, but it should never be about the person.
I struggle to understand how you could be this opposed to a "no personal insults" policy, so I'll let you elaborate - what's the problem?
@ravenonthill @adamdavidson @froomkin Of course, I don't think anyone meant to imply this should be the only guiding principle.
Of course, here it gets more complicated to draw the line. Misinformation is a huge problem, and this is part of the reason why a closed instance for journalists is a good idea to begin with.
As for articles from the New York Times, I think there should be room to discuss them - especially if one thinks the content is subpar.
@sab @adamdavidson @froomkin moderation is hard, part ∞. Perhaps I overreacted. It seemed to me that the language was the language of both-siderism, which is deeply embedded in current journalism.
And, seriously, sometimes people should get angry.
@ravenonthill I understand where you come from! It's tempting to blame only Russia, Trump, and the GOP for the lack of trust in the media in the US, but I think it's fair to say the media industry is not innocent either.
And people should get angry - but the anger needs to be used for good. Bad actors are generally motivated by recieving anger in social media; online hate is the only human interaction some of these people get.
@sab @adamdavidson @froomkin The problem is, the moderation policy has to extend beyond "no personal insults." If one of your members gets angry with another for good reason - the person who gave the offense has to be held responsible - otherwise you end up siding with people who pick fights.