It is decidedly not a non sequitur. My argument is that selective moderation by you, the site owner, is worse than no moderation by you. If you go about only moderating the things you see, moderation on the platform is now directly correlated to your preferences on what you read and now open to your bias. Do you want an open discussion, or a discussion guided by you? To be clear, I'm in favor of moderation based on principles and thoroughness, but against moderation only when when it suits you.
Moreover, your tone and attitude about these things is not helpful. If you continue to dismiss people with valid points out of hand, so will the rest of the commentariat here. With great power comes great responsibility.
That argument still seems incorrect to me. The subset of posts we look at it is determined by users (flags, votes, emails, etc.) and by software. Neither of those share whatever personal preferences we may have.
Are you sure that the moderation here is so aligned with particular points of view? In my experience, most of these perceptions can be explained by people being far more likely to notice and remember the cases they dislike or disagree with. If that delta is 10x (and I think it's at least that), things are inevitably going to feel skewed.
Ah, now we are discussing my argument instead of dismissing it. Thank you for that. I think this tone is much more productive for an open conversation.
You are right that I am off if you are using tooling to assist you in moderation. From the outside, it seems arbitrary and misaligned, but I understand that it is a black box from my side.
In this particular case, I still feel like your argument is weak, but I care much more that you are grappling with my argument than anything substantive about the argument itself, so we can agree to disagree.
Moreover, your tone and attitude about these things is not helpful. If you continue to dismiss people with valid points out of hand, so will the rest of the commentariat here. With great power comes great responsibility.