Other nonsense? As in viewpoints that are disagreeable to the moderators in charge?

There’s a clear difference between male enhancement spam and a guy with a poorly thought out comment that most people find disagreeable. A middle schooler can spot the difference.

Back in my day we welcomed those poorly reasoned or flat out wrong comments: you would attack them with logic and use them as opportunities to find the truth of a matter. And the community reading it would revise their priors and the needle would move closer to the truth.

Today those comments get censored, leading to much of the awful discourse you see on FB and Reddit these days. You can’t discuss sacred cows without getting banned from a community or shadowbanned altogether.

The ridiculous rhetoric on the left these days is a direct result if this phenomenon.

No, just the kind of stuff that our customers didn't want, or that were illegal.

Pirated movies, scams that purported to offer pirated movies, people trying to steal passwords, people trying to hack our users.

I think your accusations are aimed at the wrong person.

Read the parents, this isn’t about your specific situation. You defended censoring, saying sometime it’s useful to essentially protect others from what you view as nonsense. This is the problem. What is “other nonsense” and how much of the moderators bias is in it? If someone is posting information, leave it alone. If it’s wrong it’ll be dealt with in short order by someone refuting it with more information. If it’s a spam account just posting marketing links then ban it. These users were not posting marketing links in their private messages.