I argue, why moderate it all? Poal works just fine without moderation.
i believe there was some type of study done years ago that essentially stated whenever a platform was left without moderation it always gravitated to be more conservative, but the more moderation aka censorship that was applied was the only way platforms can be left/liberal.
point being, the only way for liberals/dems/lefties to have their ideas flourish is to ban the opposing views, since quite literally none of their fucking bullshit is supported by objective evidence.
Poal is moderated
That's why you don't see kiddy porn and subversive kikes all over the place
And it's not just because users here don't give into those "things", it's also because those who tried got the shaft, and somebody made that happen, and I'm not saying it's a bad thing...
Interesting. I hadn't considered that. There are always (((people))) subverting everything. You can never have anything nice.
Hence why plato has a point, when he argues in favor of a "benevolent dictator"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king
The philosopher king is a hypothetical ruler in whom political skill is combined with philosophical knowledge. The concept of a city-state ruled by philosophers is first explored in Plato's Republic, written around 375 BC. Plato argued that the ideal state – one which ensured the maximum possible happiness for all its citizens – could only be brought into being by a ruler possessed of absolute knowledge, obtained through philosophical study. From the Middle Ages onwards, Islamic and Jewish authors expanded on the theory, adapting it to suit their own conceptions of the perfect ruler.
Several historical figures, including Alexander the Great and Marcus Aurelius, have been described by ancient and modern writers as embodying the philosopher king ideal.
(post is archived)