I've been a reader and participant of the Bogleheads forum (on investing and personal finance) for well over a decade, and I think it's a shining example of good moderation in practice. My observation is that the key is preventing discussion from getting heated; really moderating the temperature (or noise intensity, excitement, etc.) of the place. Threads on topics that are known to get heated (including topics that can be relevant to investing and personal finance, such as politics and macroeconomics and cryptocurrencies in recent times) immediately get locked. Threads on topics that start out OK but end up getting heated also get locked, or the heated content gets surgically removed if main discussion can be salvaged. So the focus is entirely on high-quality information and thoughtful, low-emotion points and counter-points to think about. The merits of the discussions continue to attract and retain new fantastic participants who make them even better. Edited to add: The practice of moderation here at HN is similar, and has similar effects, which is why I'm here.
If they started removing low-emotion information and discussions that just didn't fit the Bogleheads philosophy, I think that would cross the line into censorship.
Anyway, it's clear that the Bogleheads forum model is the polar opposite of where Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit have gone to suck in the masses and increase their engagement by highlighting the most heated stuff and throwing gasoline onto the fire with likes, votes, and retweets. I think the mainstream social media companies have put themselves into a bind with this.
To be fair, the general civility of the members of Bogleheads is the polar opposite of that at FB/Twitter/Reddit.
Maybe moderation is part of that, but I’d argue the subject matter is already generally less polarizing/toxic than what’s on the other three platforms.
But your point is still valid re: how Bogleheads does moderation.
You're right, the people who are generally attracted to Bogleheads in the first place, and furthermore the people who are able to participate there without getting removed, are probably quite civil under their FB/Twitter/Reddit handles too. Or they're people who won't go anywhere near FB/Twitter/Reddit.
What's obviously very hard is allowing discussion of politics, macroeconomics, religion, race, etc. without it getting heated. Bogleheads doesn't even try.
If they started removing low-emotion information and discussions that just didn't fit the Bogleheads philosophy, I think that would cross the line into censorship.
Anyway, it's clear that the Bogleheads forum model is the polar opposite of where Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit have gone to suck in the masses and increase their engagement by highlighting the most heated stuff and throwing gasoline onto the fire with likes, votes, and retweets. I think the mainstream social media companies have put themselves into a bind with this.