Yeah that’s not what I meant 
You have been on a soapbox about this thing from day one, even now saying people who disagree with you were guilty of “hysteria”.
I use the word “moderated website”. I think our record speaks for itself on this issue and I’m confident our approach is the correct one. Remember, this is a community website, not a scientific forum. That would have a different set of expectations.
I know the open thread not being open to all posts and duscussion isn’t censorship because you were allowed to put the same posts in other threads. That’s organisation, not censorship. I’m sorry your interpretation of what “open” meant here was incorrect, but that isn’t censorship
Just own the mistake. If you can’t see your mistake, or refuse to acknowledge it, dont be surprised if mods who volunteer their finite time here decide that dealing with you is taking too much time for what it is worth, and just move stuff around
Cool thing about being a mod, I get to see all the deleted and flamed stuff now. I even went back over a year to find something someone posted at me that was flamed and led to a suspension. I really wanted to see what they said that was worth 2 weeks.
Dude, just acknowledge that you were wrong. This is what I’m talking about. You couldn’t back up your assertion, your attempt to reflected poorly on you, and now you’re deflecting. If you can’t own the mistake, I can’t keep engaging with you (what would be the point?)
That isn’t being dismissive of your totally valid points, and it isn’t censorship. But in such cases, I’m no longer interested in any debate with you in these subjects and will default to reorganization if a thread starts getting hot or off topic
Misunderstandings happen all the time. No shame in it 
But it’s what I meant.
I’m just frankly amazed that anybody refers to this “thing” with a dismissive term like “soapbox” at this stage of the game. In the UK people are openly discussing the possibility of Matt Hancock going to jail for gross misconduct in public office (although not, it should be said, for the possibility that he arranged the euthanasia of the elderly in “care” homes). Are you honestly, seriously, suggesting that these matters are of so little importance they should be relegated to the temp thread, or otherwise pushed out of the way where people can’t see them?
As I said, there was a far more important point underlying the superficial topic of “COVID”. The very fabric of Western society was undermined by - yes, hysteria. Decades of progress were unravelled at a stroke. People were beaten, shot at, ostracized and fired, starved, and otherwise harassed over a matter of belief. And you’re suggesting that this is nothing for anyone to get upset about?
OK, I think we’re clear on the matter here. If your considered opinion is that nothing bad happened, and nothing needs correction, there’s little point in continuing the thread.
Gaslighting has been the name of the game here all along. Acknowledge that I was wrong about what, exactly? Just wrong in a general sense? I have no idea what specific instance you’re even referring to here, but whatever it was, I’m pretty confident subsequent events have supported the point even if insufficient data were available at the time.
I think we’re at the end of the discussion here.
People disagreeing with you isn’t censorship. If you choose not to contine with the thread, at least acknowledge that you aren’t being censored here.
Yeah we can both do that. However, I brought it up. You have deflected.
See, that’s been your attitude from day one. Not everyone agreed with you then, and not everyone agrees with you now.
No, I think they were openly discussed here. Believe me, and I trust people will back me up on this, we saw your posts and those of others.
I think you should be as upset as you want. Posting here still needs to be within rules however (most posts sent to Temp were because of incivility). Also you do not have the right to insist that I or anyone else be upset or carte blanche to post your upsetness in any thread on this site as you see fit.
That is my opinion, overall. Were there any mistakes? I’m sure. We’d have to get specific on those. Overall, I think everyone got their say on what were hotly contended issues. I’m sure many people still think we were too allowing of various viewpoints.
If you can’t remember, that doesn’t mean I am gaslighting. If you want to accuse me of gaslighting, don’t be surprised if I don’t care to engage with you.
And me choosing not to respond to your posts exactly the way you want me to still isn’t censorship
Ok, but you choosing not to discuss this issue in this thread isn’t censorship.
If you bring up your complaint again later in another thread and it is removed, that still isn’t censorship. Here is the place and now is the time, but frankly I lost interest at gaslighting.
Definitely, not seeing any censorship. Just content reorganization and management of attitudes.
I think the line for me as far as moderation was concerned was if a post crossed the line into encouraging illegal behavior or might be interpreted as spreading misinformation which the Taiwan government had warned would be considered illegal and face consequences to those doing it.
Wearing masks for example was a pain I think no one liked and I’m sure discussing the effectiveness was never censored but encouraging people to walk around maskless, no mater how we feel about the topic would have had to be removed as a law was in place requiring people to mask up. We don’t encourage anyone to break the law on here and such posts will unapologetically be removed.
Skipping quarantine or posting demonstrably false and misleading information about vaccine injury would again fall foul of the law IMO and we did have some of those posts where some of the mods dug deep into the actual content of what was being posted (at considerable time I should note in some cases) and were able to determine in some cases what was being posted was absolute nonsense.
There may indeed have been instances of over moderation, we are mere mortals and make mistakes like everyone else. But for me, it was keeping an eye on what would be seen as within bounds of the law.
There are some considerable subtleties here. Firstly I did ask the moderators if they were concerned about site owners being prosecuted, and the answer was “no” - presumably Taiwan law does not hold a chat platform responsible for the opinions expressed upon it? As I recall, those who were prosecuted (and IIRC it was done under laws regarding defamation, not the misinformation law) were individuals, not the platforms on which their opinions were posted.
Secondly, I would suggest that a valid debate in a “free” democracy is whether the government itself is breaking the law or acting unethically, and what the citizen should do under those circumstances. The Taiwan government made false statements about vaccine efficacy, COVID fatality, and other COVID-related issues. I can’t see them prosecuting themselves, but they’d be hard-pressed to prosecute someone for pointing out the facts.
Finally, it’s debatable whether any actual law exists on which (for example) mask mandates are predicated. Administrative regulations have to (a) refer back to some primary legislation and (b) may not conflict with the Law in general. There is no legal instrument that permits the CECC to mandate masks for the general population, and there certainly isn’t one that permits the management of corporations to mandate them. Whether the government would express a contrary opinion, and whether the courts would uphold their views, is obviously a whole different barrel of monkeys. Taiwan may have imported their legal scaffolding from Germany, but they’ve inherited their cultural values from China, where rule-of-law is simply not a thing.
I don’t recall anybody doing this. I and others were careful to refer mainly to official sources of vaccine-related information, or to published scientific papers. And in any case, the actual effects of COVID vaccines, as things now transpire, are far worse than any of us ever claimed from the evidence available at the time.
My gripe here is that nobody dug into anything. I can recall a particular instance where I claimed that the risk from COVID to young people was essentially zero, or words to that effect. This resulted in an immediate and protracted argument with a moderator, and the post may or may not have been removed/edited - I don’t recall. Nevertheless, that statement is and was correct. I have posted official ONS data multiple times which backs up the statement, and UK government authorities have subsequently confirmed that that was the case. A couple of months ago I posted the most up-to-date information showing that all-cause mortality for under-50s was unchanged in 2020 compared to previous years (and in fact was lower than 2010). This should have been a matter for public debate, not private nitpicking.
With all due respect you are not privy to the moderator discussions, in particular I recall @hannes digging into the details on a number of occasions. So, yes, we were doing that even if it went unnoticed to you.
I was going to post a link about site rules and promoting illegal behavior but can’t find the link to site rules, so that’s my add to the feedback thread. Don’t know where that’s gone, if anyone knows?
@mick just told you people did dig, but anyways this gripe isn’t censorship. I asked you to back up an assertion with proof and you provided a paper that, once i read to the bottom explicitly stated that it didn’t support your point. It isn’t that I didnt dig into it, but you don’t recall. I remember well, because that is when I lost all doubt about how much time to spend on your sources.
Isn’t that important? Was it censored, yes or no? If not, what’s the problem?
Were those posts deleted from the site? Yes or no. If no, not censorship.
Was this post deleted from the site? Yes or no. If no, not censorship.
PMs are not censorship, either.
I’m bringing this up now because, in common with other social-media platforms, forumosa seems to have chilled out a little. There is still some sporadic harassment, but by and large we’re back to posting freely. The period I’m referring to was roughly mid-2021 to mid-2022.
What I’m asking you to do, now that things are (relatively speaking) back to normal, is to undertake not to do that again. Since you’re denying that “that” even happened in the first place, the conversation is perhaps pointless.
Hannes did not participate in the censorship, as far as I can ascertain, and may well have made an effort. I am referring here to specific moderators who not only did not attempt to check the facts, but explicitly informed me that it doesn’t matter whether I’m wrong or right, and that the opinion of moderators is final. If you wish I can post the PM conversations here, but I really don’t think that would help.
Do you also forgot our PM exchange, where I went back and had a talk with the mods, and ultimately suggested you post about your concerns here?
Because I brought it up above, but you didn’t seem to notice. Please, acknowledge that this point in your OP is factually incorrect, and frankly misleading.
I’m not going to accuse you of gaslighting, that would be rude (a borderline personal attack), but I am going to give you a second chance to take ownership of your mistake. I’ll blame it on your memory, and not assume you are doing it on purpose.
I’m asking for examples of censorship. Sorry, I can’t take your word for it.
I can’t give you such examples without quoting personal conversations with moderators. If you want to say that it never happened, that’s fine. There’s little to be gained in pressing the point.
I’ll press this point. Should I share the PM between you and I on this?
What, the whole thing? Sure, you can if you want, but it meanders all over the place so I doubt people are going to read all of it, and it’s only tangentially relevant to my initial post here. As I said, my complaint relates to things that happened several months ago. I’m only complaining about them now for the simple reason that mods flat-out refused to discuss the issue at the time (and there’s one particular issue that I’ve been told not to raise in public). The problem with that, inevitably, is that memories are not as fresh as they might be.
Right, so when you say:
In fact we had a long meandering back and forth where I went back to a mod discussion and in the end I suggested you bring your concerns here to Site Feedback.
Just say yes, and apologize for your misleading and factually incorrect OP and I can let it go.
Again: I was referring not to you, but to another moderator, and to conversations from many months prior. This all gets really damn complicated because the paragraph in my initial post where I explained this was deleted, and I was warned not to refer to specific moderators. I really don’t want to lump everyone in the same bucket. I’m aware that you’re all individuals and have different views and different moderation styles.
Right at the start of the exchange you’re referring to, you initially refused to engage and then subsequently changed your mind. That’s fine. But it really wasn’t you in particular I’m referring to in this thread.
Ok, fair enough. Consider me mollified.
Still, on the question of censorship, it seems the only things that have been removed were potentially against the law (ok, some laws are stupid, but better to err on the side of caution), and personal attacks including recently against specific mods.
Not on the topic of censorship. I initially refused to engage with you in a COVID discussion which remains my personal policy.
I made no “personal attack”. The deleted paragraph was a complaint about specific behaviour which is verifiable from thread history. There is a difference. I know for a fact that other posters would like to register the same complaint but are either afraid to do so, or can’t be bothered because they know it’ll be ignored.