The problem with GAF is mainly that as an outsider it's REALLY complex to understand all the baggage of the "meta".
The moderation was/is a problem insofar a user has no idea about what's allowed and what's not.
For example I've observed that verbal abuse is fine... As long it's targeted at people that the moderation doesn't like, but it's then of course not tolerated in all the other cases.
And that's FINE too. I understand this is a community where people can vent off. It has a certain orientation that has a certain deliberate purpose. It wants to protect a certain category of people that are, so to speak, under the weather in real life. And because of what they get in real life, these people have the right to obtain small exceptions to the rules. To have a place where they can vent off and express legitimate frustration.
But again, this can be hardly understood by someone who comes here and suddenly observes that rules aren't applied uniformly.
It takes quite a bit of time to understand what is allowed and what is not, and quite frequently moderators would misunderstand what is being written just because at a superficial glance it looked like coming from a "rival" general opinion that they have a moral right to wall off.
This sort of general behavior, that I just said is legitimate and acceptable (after you understand how it works and can adapt to it) also has consequences that are not good, though.
It favors an extremism of opinions. When there are situations that are complex and nuanced the role of GAF as a community was always about drawing a very distinct line of "us versus them". To rally the troops and "close ranks". If there's some controversy about Boogie or Pwediepie or whoever, the role of GAF was to build distinct categories to frame these personalities. The role of GAF was to remove nuance and ambiguity in order to push away all legitimate doubt. Make clear cut distinctions. Orientate the part of the community that still had doubts. So for GAF Pewdiepie is always disingeuous, 100% nazi, 100% the enemy and the living embodiment of what the community should fight.
That's why you very often read in the comments something evoking "the hill to die on". As if one person cannot have a variety of opinions, but had to always get in some kind of war and defend just one single thing as the ultimate act that is asked of him/her. There's always this rhetoric of "going to war", that is never conductive of a civil and moderate discussion.
I don't want to discuss the specific case again, but just to underline that GAF had the purpose of drawing those sharp distinctions and labeling people so that they would be turned into targets. To remove all traces of doubt. So that the community could reinforce its identity and fight some projected enemy outside. This is never a good thing, it only builds higher walls and creates progressively more intolerance among people.
If in real life a person is a complex entity that comprises a multitude of ideas and behaviors, some good some bad. For GAF you only become a label. It's either enemy or friend. Instead of trying to encourage people to change for the good, GAF liked better to take them to the ground and beat them. To cut ties and carve out pieces of itself.
And the end result is that communities instead of unifying and sharing what they have, increasingly become antagonistic and turn on themselves, and... splinter...
The community turns on itself and breeds misunderstanding and hate.
Whenever a diplomat shows up, you shoot the diplomat in the head. Because you don't want to build bridges, you want to burn them. And yet, this will never lead to a better world. It doesn't work, and it's very sad to see it happening again and again.
When you are at war, complexity, nuance and doubt can only undermine your survival. So I can understand that people right now legitimately *feel* at war in today's world. But the more we plunge into this scenario, the more things are getting worse. (cue Fallout meme)
