We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
I don't know if it's the controversial topics popping up that made me feel this or not, but LI has definitely been more active in sharing what 'they' believe is true which was not the case earlier.
For me moderation was about censoring derogatory, factually incorrect and targeting nature of comments rather than censoring comments which fall on the other end of the spectrum of what mods believe to be true/un-woke. There are incidents where comments have been censored because it MIGHT offend someone, imo it's a vague reason for oppressing an opinion.
Should moderation be allowed to actively participate in sharing of opinions?
I personally do not think that's fair considering it is the regulating authority, it should be unbiased towards everyone despite the person's ideology not being in consonance with LI's ideology.
To which LI might argue that they allow every comment which are logically sound and all, no. As long as an authority is displaying it's bias, it is no longer an unbiased medium to share opinions. I'll cite the threads to support my argument.
https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/240820-The-Wire-vs-Meta-Who-is-giving-fake-news-and-who-is-telling-the-truth-[All the comments by LI has been opinionated, so far as to mock everyone in the comment 5.1 for being indifferent]
https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/240601-Dating-Advice-needed-Can-not-so-good-looking-girls-hope-to-date-good-looking-guys-[In comment 5.1.1 LI is being the judge of what represents the real world and what doesn't to Playboy PA]
https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/240115-2-conservative-US-circuit-judges-refuse-to-take-Yale-law-clerks-after-students-disrupt-free-speech-panel-Fox-News[All the comments made by LI has been heavily opinionated and targeted the audience having contrasted beliefs]
There were more of these incidents, but unfortunately I wasn't able to keep track of them all.
What I advocate for is free speech in the platform which aren't subjected to scrutiny even if it has the possibility of offending someone, it is necessary to sustain Legally India as a platform for free and candid discussions.
I'm aware that I might've been a bit snobby with my remarks and thanks to that I've credited myself with an audience who actively judge me for being not accomplished enough to be a part of this platform. You guys will be delighted to know that I've decided to log out for the time being, I rest my case.
Thanks for being there ♥️
LI se itna pareshaan mat ho. Jindagi mein kaafi badi cheejein karni hein
Yo! BJP IT Cell fake news points deserve to be shot down as a game. Let the moderator have some of the fun.
Suck and choke on that red pill.