It’s right there in the name. All seeing. Pan opticon

Yeah, but my point is most of the people here will actually argue in favor of it. Saying that it’s the best and only way etc. you got to wonder where that came from

It is 100% the conversational equivalent, surely

We are watched. We are dictated to.

That’s key

Moderated social media. Lemmy etc

It’s a discussion of principle.

This is a foreign concept?

It’s a discussion of principle.

If you are saying nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear from moderation, right?

Google it. It’s a system where you’re watched all the time.

It’s weird. The simple fact of being watched and told what you can say. And the possibility that what you’re saying is being edited and what you’re hearing is edited too.

This strikes me as abhorrent. But most of the people here call it necessary, preferable and even desirable.

Imagine a form of downvoting that led to removal from the server.

Decree of the masses vs decree of authority . Still gets the job done.

This is a discussion of principle. Save the details till later.

That doesn’t make having a moderator any less bad

I don’t see the connection with my reply

I am aware of that. But still, giving somebody the power to arbitrarily censor and modify our conversation is a fundamentally bad thing.

There are other ways to control the conversation. Ones that do not require a moderator. For example, voting.

So not necessary.

Why should we trust you?

Surely the constituancy of users have some hand in making the community too.

The better way is one where control resides solely with the user.

Necessary? That is a large statement.

What leads you to say that it’s necessary?

I’m pretty sure that dogs recognize the difference too. Which is more to my point.