Comment by dang

Moderator bias is the perception the mind leaps to when running into moderation one dislikes. But people's views of moderator bias are as varied as their feelings on the underlying topic. Actually, they're identical to their feelings on the underlying topic—simple introspection will reveal that to anyone. If it helps at all, I can tell you that when we see flamebait going the other way we try to moderate it just as much.

Moderation work has a weird side-effect that is elusive to describe but is relevant to this question. When you routinely have to moderate angry arguments, where neither side will concede so much as a grain of sand or a drop of water to the other, you often end up in an intense position where one or both sides turn their frustration onto you instead and decide that you are the problem. Sometimes it seems as if that's the one thing they agree on! The side-effect is that over time, this seems to gradually change how your brain functions. You start to think less in terms of agree/disagree and more in terms of the container as a whole.

People often make claims about our personal biases and views, but from my perspective they're always curiously off, because they miss this weirdness of how moderation changes a person over time. I've compared it to having one's brain sandblasted (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16361266). Dwelling in the crossfire has altered how I see many of these high-energy topics. My views have become more friable—smaller in scope and less welded to the infrastructure of the major positions. For example—speaking personally now, not as a moderator—it seems obvious to me that there's no factual dispute in the current thread. That is, there's no contradiction between state infiltration of corporate and academic environments being a thing, and misguided persecution of honest researchers also being a thing: not only could both of those be true, it's actually hard to see how they wouldn't go together. Yet people each pick one of those two and use them as spears to joust with.

What's happening is that our loyalties keep us from widening the frame enough to incorporate all available information. Instead we try to exclude any information that 'helps' the other side and block it when they try to bring it up. Most heated arguments now appear to me to be of this nature. At root, we can't and won't hear each other's stories. In this way the gruntwork of moderation has turned out to be a protracted exercise in forcible frame-widening—something that is painful in its little steps but also has an expanding effect that may (or may not) be worth it.