Moderation

When collaborative sites have moderation functions to prevent a ‘free for all’, does this defeat the purpose?

There are obviously pros and cons to moderation. In my opinion, I would say that although it can be seen to be limit how “free” the Internet and produser content can be, it is a necessary evil. If it weren’t for moderation many of the evils which have arisen on the Internet would go un-noticed, such as hacking, flaming or spam.

Whilst on the one hand it can be seen to limit the extent to which the Internet allows us to execute our right to free speech, one of the key advantages of the Internet, as well as being viewed as a way by which certain opinions and content which is deemed by one individual as inappropriate is not made free and open to the masses, a very subjective view point.

However, if looking at moderation based on the assumption that the moderator is able to decide precisely what is appropriate for all, which of course he/she is not, it serves an important function in protecting individuals from offensive or distasteful content. An example of this would be when flaming or spam starts in a produser content for example a forums. The moderator I would assume, as they are often selected as they have a thorough knowledge of how the particular forum or whatever the case may be, operates and the type of content which would be suitable, is able to judge whether the majority of the users would find the content of any value.

Although to some extent this of course defeats the purpose of collaborative sites, in that content is being mediated by the moderator and therefore selectivity is an issue, it is a necessary evil in order to protect users of any harmful content, and as far as I can see there isn’t a more logical alternative.