-46

While some of the individual sites are great, and some of the information on the technical sites are terrific; it is the more opinion-based sites which I have had a problem with.

I've found twice now (narrow sampling, but one with the depth of years of participation and thousands of posts) that the nonprofessional nature of the moderators tend to lead to abuse of power. It's an inherent problem with the democratic nature of the Stack Exchange network, as opposed to having more dispassionate professional moderators (or at least a professional moderator oversight) which would be more like a republic to my mind.

A democracy, after all, killed Socrates. Plato, Socrates' student, invented the republic to grant individual rights even against a majority. To protect individuals against the tyranny of the majority.

Now having said all that, fine it's understandable. Businesses are interested in making money. Hiring impartial moderators from outside a community perhaps benefits such a small minority of individuals that it doesn't make business sense. Fine, that's perfectly reasonable.

Which brings me to my larger problem. Once an individual has decided they are no longer interested in participating on a site, Stack Exchange mandates that all their posts remain. The individual has no recourse. Stack Exchange claims this right under "fair use".

I would suggest that, when someone leaves a board and deletes their account, it deletes all references to themselves on the board; they should be permitted to remove their posts/ideas with them.

Fair use, permits limited, sited use, not indefinite anonymous use. If the account has thousands of posts and tens of thousands of votes, the author should still be permitted to delete his posts with his account. While deleting such content, potentially diminishes the site, I would argue permitting the content to stay over the objections of the author is worse.

The diversity of opinion on the site is gone with the author. Deleting one's account in which much time and effort is a statement. By retaining the posts Stack Exchange has taken away, the last voice the author had to express themselves; silence.

  • 36
    You (and everyone else) agreed to the content license when you posted the content. – Cody Gray Nov 7 at 0:11
  • 8
    Does this answer your question? Who owns the content I post? – John Montgomery Nov 7 at 0:25
  • 16
    For context, I'm assuming this question was prompted by the fact that OP tried to redact a bunch of their Politics.SE questions and is currently suspended for it. – F1Krazy Nov 7 at 0:51
  • 1
    Does this answer your question? An Update On Creative Commons Licensing - You were given an opportunity to present any thoughts and objections there, at that time. – Rob Nov 7 at 0:57
  • 22
    Saying SE's claim to being able to use posted content is based on "fair use" is just fundamentally wrong and indicates you haven't actually read the Terms of Service (TOS) to which you agreed when posting content. The TOS is very clear that by posting on the Stack Exchange (SE) network, you granted a non-revocable right (i.e. regardless of your future choices) for SE to distribute the content, under a CC BY-SA license (and, potentially, other licenses). Please read the TOS and also see: How does deleting work? …. – Makyen Nov 7 at 2:30
  • 6
    @10Repisn'tactiveonMSE No, they never had an account here; this was migrated from MSO. – Sonic the K-Day Hedgehog Nov 7 at 3:14
  • 1
    I don't understand the last sentence. Of course you can always stop participating, you have even the right to dissociate your name from the content. Isn't this as silent as it can get? – Trilarion Nov 8 at 12:38
  • SE is not a "board" or a "forum" or anything else like that. The fact that you called it such indicates a substantial lack of knowledge about what SE actually is and how it works. If you did not understand the ramifications before you asked any questions, then why did you ask them? – JK. Nov 10 at 20:59