Pls Delete

"MasterSeedy;c-2387120" wrote:

You find it liberating to not have to exercise your own discretion?

Let me clarify: I find rules that are easy to follow less burdensome than rules that are vague and difficult to follow, resulting in the potential that I act in good faith, believing myself to be following the rules, and then end up banned or suspended because my interpretation of a vague rule is different than someone else's interpretation of a vague rule.

Obviously it's more "liberating" not to have the rule at all, but I was comparing two different scenarios, not all possible scenarios.

Also I think it's fair to say that tolerating harassment by having no rules against harassment isn't really "liberating" either. yes, you have fewer rules, but if the venue becomes toxic because only people who love harassing and abusing others are attracted to venues that don't shut down harassment and abuse then you lose that venue altogether.

Look at Twitter. Lots of people have left twitter b/c they can't stand to be on with all the harassment and abuse. People aren't more "liberated" because Twitter doesn't have consistent standards (or doesn't enforce them consistently, which amounts to the same thing). Facebook kills the accounts of women whose babies are snuggled up to their breasts, feeding, even though no **** is visible because that's supposedly "porn", but tolerates selfies that are obviously designed to titillate, not to mention ads from porn makers. It's not only ridiculous and terrible, but it leads to moms being accused, not in so many words, of ****, since the picture is banned on account of porn and it had a child in it.

No, I don't really trust tech companies to enforce vague standards and I am more comfortable expressing my opinions here when the rules are clear.

Anyway, I hope that clears up the earlier comment. I agree "liberated by strict rules" did come across wrong, so sorry about that.