-6

Why is this topic no-longer allowable?

| |
9

This topic was never allowed.

Discussing the policies of websites isn't what people expect from a Q&A site about politics. If you would like to discuss the Stack Exchange network, please use https://meta.stackexchange.com

| |
  • SE Meta don’t allow me on there because I discussed precisely that topic. They call it a question limit not a ban but it's obvious what it is. – What's in a Google Search Mar 27 '18 at 21:41
  • 8
    I don't know what you did to get suspended on meta stackexchange, but I suspect the mods had their reasons. – Philipp Mar 27 '18 at 21:41
  • Well if the people in power had their reason to censor who could ask for the reason? Those are secret for a reason right? takes screenshot and waits for deletion notice. But of course the public humiliation still stands? – What's in a Google Search Mar 27 '18 at 21:43
  • 3
    @Philipp: Of course they have reasons. They don't want to have to respond to inconvenient questions. – jamesqf Mar 28 '18 at 3:17
  • 3
    @PeterDavidCarter Question limits are not bans, nor are they applied by moderators. They are automatically applied by the system. – Alexander O'Mara Mar 28 '18 at 13:31
  • 'We haven't banned you, we just decided the computer is allowed to decide the people we downvoted aren't allowed around (btw, only the people fulfilling our criteria are allowed to downvote)'. All equals are animals or vice versa in the JavaScript NaN sense. – What's in a Google Search Mar 29 '18 at 17:46
  • 1
    @PeterDavidCarter There's so much spam and trolls about, the only way to tackle the problem is through automated means, yes. Sometimes that makes for both false positives and negatives. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the rest of your comment. – Jeff Lambert Mar 29 '18 at 19:37
  • @JeffLambert it's a JavaScript reference that plays on the unusual behaviours around not a number and the statement made in Animal Farm by George Orwell that "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others". I was making the point that when systems are designed specifically to objectively adjudicate what you allow people to say and do based in the privilages you already decided you would and wouldn't allow them, you're not allowing everyone a say at all, just pretending the opposite of what you do. In JavaScript equality NaN (not a number) is said not to equal NaN. – What's in a Google Search Jul 22 '18 at 12:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .