Removing a harmless mod is a slippery slope because then moderators are just removing mods based on their political ideolagy. Kinda ridiculous if you ask me.
Removing a harmless feature is a slippery slope because then modders are just removing features based on their political ideology. Kinda ridiculous if you ask me.
It’s just as ridiculous the other way around though.
You’re point is valid about the two-way street that is ideological moderation, whether it’s done by modders or platform moderators. While some argue that removing certain features serves to make a political statement, the same could be said for removing mods themselves. Both actions can be seen as influenced by the ideological beliefs of those making the decisions. In this case, the main question is: who gets to decide what crosses the line and what doesn’t? And should these decisions be open to discussion within the community?
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Removing a harmless feature is a slippery slope because then modders are just removing features based on their political ideology. Kinda ridiculous if you ask me.
It’s just as ridiculous the other way around though.
You’re point is valid about the two-way street that is ideological moderation, whether it’s done by modders or platform moderators. While some argue that removing certain features serves to make a political statement, the same could be said for removing mods themselves. Both actions can be seen as influenced by the ideological beliefs of those making the decisions. In this case, the main question is: who gets to decide what crosses the line and what doesn’t? And should these decisions be open to discussion within the community?