[blackeyeblitzar]

Moderating heavily just means that the group in power will censor the other side’s opinions. We already have that, it is called Reddit. I’m not sure that is a solution. Maybe you can claim that there is less conflict, but in reality it just turns into a one sided echo chamber.

[kelnos]

> Moderating heavily just means that the group in power will censor the other side’s opinions.

They key is not to moderate based on content, but on tone. "Tone" isn't really a good word, because tone is hard to get through a textual medium. I think what I mean is that you moderate things like ad hominem attacks and people being disrespectful or uncivil. Criticism is fine as long as it's constructive and delivered respectfully. But you don't moderate based on what someone's views are.

I know that's hard, and even people who actively try to watch their biases and avoid making decisions influenced by them will still screw up sometimes. But it's not impossible.

[Terr_]

> the group in power will censor the other side’s opinions

You mean on individual subreddits, or is this a snide jab at Reddit-the-company?

I think a big part of how online moderation goes bad comes when secret moderation is permitted, which prevents a community-at-large from noticing or organizing against abusive behavior.

[fasa99]

>Does reddit thought-police subreddits, or do they thought police curate the site as a whole? Yes. 2 million updoots say this is the rightthink, reddit user, you want to think right don't you?