It's a very mixed bag, dependently largely on the personal views of the moderators at-large relative to the speakers. For the most part, the mods at .world seem egalitarian and amicable to liberalish dissenting views. We haven't seen a slew of censorship/bannings over arguments about veganism or Israel/Palestine or capitalism vs socialism.

But the "y'all deserve to get banned" mentality is largely tied up in the idea that their ideas are bad for being outside the spectrum of your allowable discourse. Meanwhile, a community like .ml or Truth Social doing a censorship/ban on content is morally repugnant because its limiting conversations that are inside the spectrum of your allowable discourse.

The technical mechanics of these communities are the same, everyone's just arguing where the lines should be drawn.

I imagine that phenomenon is similar to how super sheltered kids become the wildest teenagers/young adults (whichever age they are when they first get a taste of freedom.) Like how people with newfound freedom often party hard with it, people who've never been in a position of power before can easily take their new authority too far.

Totally not excusing it. It's not some inevitable "human nature" thing. There are good parents, teachers, and others in positions of authority that take their responsibility to others seriously. They're the ones that allow some modicum of function in society.

But those who seek power for its own sake are going to be ruthless about it. Then once someone has power, it's extremely difficult for them to let it go.

Sorry to all the lovely people I've met named karen during my life, no.

And like many human beings, they often refuse to admit their mistakes out of pride and anger.

Nothing about being a mod is hard.

Would you like to play a game?

https://trustandsafety.fun/

Moderation plays a big part in shaping the community. Are community guidlines not set by the mods? If there are people participating not following the guidlines they get squelched because they weren't following the rules agreed to by everyone participating in that community.

Those were a lot of different points. I think they’re important and I respect your view.

I‘m not sure though if I see it exactly the same:

ownership

i think this assumes a lot. You could of course start more communities and I did so. But of course your goal can be different.

authority

I agree, authority should not be important.

modding is easy

I dont think that is the case. Modding - especially good modding - is very hard, as you mentioned yourself. A mod needs enough restraint to take their ego out of the equation and needs to see when the community rules get broken and act accordingly. A lot of bad mods are too eager or too lax with bigotry.

only flagged content needs looking at

It needs to be looked at first and the rest is optional, yes. But a mod should definitely trust their gut and be an active part in the community they mod. Ideally under a different name though so to divide between mod stuff and non.

They give em bob haircuts, setup em up in a SUV, and groan when they see them and their stack of expired cupons.

Okay, sure, but Greenwald's an absolute fascist-apologist piece of shit who only hides behind a liberal-libertarian veneer when it is convenient.

Past that, the problem you run into with dissent is that it is heavily predicated on whether you are willing to endorse the dissenters. The more alien a community's political views and activities, the less tolerant admins become. The cause of Luigi Mangione is the most notable one, as certain communities seem to reveal in cannonizing his image while others furiously scrub out anything but the most derogatory mention of his name.

How do you distinguish between the dissident Freedom Fighter and the dissident Terrorist? What do you perceive as the limit of tolerance towards the intolerant? What kind of advocacy is constructive and what is merely provocative or trollish?

When you've got a guy like Glenn paling around with Tucker Carlson and bemoaning the Woke Antifa Left one minute, then crying over their own community of MAGA Truthers getting deep sixed by the Deep State, it seems the very idea of legitimate "dissent" is predicated on whether you align with it or not.

Clearly, have not thought properly about the Holy profit, boy

here, how to speak then

You missed a closing delimiter on the subclause. Is that still acceptable speech for you?

you trust this person to tell you... how to speak

We got a lot of content and vibe modding going on.

This is a classic suppression and steering tactic.