Comment by godelski

> I don't think the author intended for so much confusion at this meta-level that our disagreement is occurring at.

On the other hand, I believe that this was exactly their goal and were quite clear about it.

> If they did, then the content moderation analogy becomes totally unjustified. The author's point was (or should have been) that we could all play the game my way and still disagree - that is what is interesting.

The point is that everyone has a different set of internal rules and defining those explicitly is incredibly difficult. I really do feel like they are quite clear on this, especially with their distinction from the other game.

> Our disagreement feels more like how people get stuck arguing about the Monty Hall problem, not noticing they are using subtly different assumptions.

I'm curious how you 1) see this differently than what was intended and 2) how you think this doesn't happen in moderation (or politics)