[Houshalter]

I don't think the moderation itself is the problem, it's the rules. There are certain kinds of questions that are interesting and useful, and get shut down. That of course makes people upset. The moderators are perfectly fair and consistent in enforcing the rules, but the rules are stupid.

[phjesusthatguy3]

All rules are arbitrary, though, and if you want to participate in a community you have to abide by the rules. If the rules are stupid enough, anybody can splinter off and say they're starting their own community, especially on the internet!

I mean, look at HN here. I'm on my third account: the first, I have no idea why I got hellbanned; the second, I know exactly why; the third, I don't really care about. But it's interesting to read the stories and ideas I fundamentally disagree with, and occasionally I post something detrimental to my fully participating in this community. Those are the rules.

[Houshalter]

You are allowed to criticize the rules. Rules can be stupid. And if no one complains, then they will never change.

I don't agree with many of HN's policies, but they are nowhere near as bad as stack overflow. At least on censoring actually useful discussions, whereas HN mostly censors flame wars and political stuff.