Do you believe iHub and SI are open, freedom of speech places, governed by the First Amendment?
Well clearly, in my opinion, that is not the case at any privately owned for profit company ... the owners can do (almost) whatever they please with their company. I say "almost", because the owners would still be subject to Federal statutes.
Or do you see them as private communities dictated by whatever the owners put in the Terms of Use?
You better use your dictionary (and apply some common sense) to this second part of your question.
The two terms "community" and "dictate" do not work together, in my opinion.
Although perhaps not a dictionary definition, a "community" is just the locale where people live and congregate. But in a stock discussion forum, a "community" is a group of people bound together by a common interest. In either context though, I would assume a "community" to be a (more or less) DEMOCRATIC entity which SHOULD be governed for the common good and by the common interest of the whole.
How can such a comunity be "dictated" by a TOU, or anything for that matter? As soon as you start DICTATING (your word) you are a dictator and not a moderator.
Check the dictionary definition of moderate/moderation/moderator. Generally moderate means NOT extreme or excessive, medium, etc. I certainly see censorship (in this case, removal of posts) as extreme and excessive.
Furthermore, in a formal debate (such as a high-school or presidential debate) a moderator enforces the ground rules in a fair, unbiased, and judicious manner, but they do not censor or prevent one side of the debate from being heard. A moderator should GUIDE debate, not CONTROL it.
At iHub when "moderators" remove posts posts they are controlling the debate and NOT moderating it. When they dictate the rules they become dictators not moderators.
Now that you are one of the new owners of SI, please do not ruin it here like you did at iHub. |
