If someone really wants to foster a positive environment online, why are the standards they hold themselves to in administering their service so disconnected from the standards they hold their government to? Shouldn't they be the same?

I've seen lots of admins holding this cognitive dissonance in their head, and I don't understand how they do it.

The NixOS project is an example of offering as many rights to its users as governments. They even have their own democratic voting system. Recent news in regards to that place seems to show that it doesn't go as well as you think it'd go. Fascism in technology is the only real maintainable solution for the long run.

>>52195
I can go either way on voting. Is that what happened with NixOS?
>Democracy is built by the people, of the people, and for the people. But the people are retarded...
I more mean the insufferable attitude and disdain most admins have for their average user. It's so rare to find an admin that gives a shit about something other than their reputation and site KPIs. They demand transparency from their users, and from their governments, but never for themselves. Maybe it's similar to why most people don't want to become politicians.

You're referring to privileges, not rights.

>>52199
Correct in the sense that rights are acknowledged by a government, not assigned to them by that government.

But functionally they can be the same. If a rule granting freedom is strictly enforced for all time, it may as well have been a right. If a site rule says "you can call the admin a faggot at any time" and no one ever interferes with that "privilege", in the end it may as well have been a right ordained by God.

>>52199
You are an obese faggot. He is referring to rights.