Moderated Out - As potent as what is allowed in

A few days ago I posted on a blog in Nature and, it seems, ended up 'moderated out'.

Hence I have created that label to help track if I ever get put in eventually, and just to create an archive of where and when it happens.

It's a technique worth noting, if only for being as pervasive as it can be powerful. Rather depending on the scope, reputation and heft of the medium, what folk read can only influence their views, and if they only get to read one set of views, or see a huge imbalance between differing ones, it's also hard to see how one would avoid thinking that there is a majority at work. And be swayed by a perceived 'group think'.

Hence editors have a huge power, especially online, which is seen erroneously as 'open'. What they choose to leave in, change or leave out can have profound effects.

As a blog 'owner', I can see why and how certain moderating rules need to apply, which is the chink in the armour of any censorship debate. Who decides, and what is the limit?

But often it is pretty clear what the reasonable rules are. BBC has them. Guardian CiF has them. I have them. And usually they revolve around good taste, decency, manners and adhering to certain standards of factual accuracy even if wild subjectivity can creep in.

So far I have not had to purge anything... and fingers crossed I won't. And if I do I hope to be able to make clear why in an acceptable way to the spirit of free debate I wish to encourage. I fear I cannot say that many of even our most major national media are quite so true to even their own rules.

On top of the subject at hand, there is also an equally pernicious moderation at play, and that is when the moderator feels they are being 'dissed'. Depends how it is done of course, but often it just comes across as precious. Hence why I no longer contribute to such as Biased BBC, though I still lurk.

Here's another, just to add to the list. It's an ad blog, for heaven's sake.

Here's what they posted: Is it possible to separate the Olympics from politics?

Here's my reply: 'You are joking, right? Let's just look at our history books. I repeat, let's...'

I remain unclear why it was not deemed worthy of inclusion.