Why are MSN comments so overly censored?

russ frame wrote:

Cannot call out <political content removed>

From the Code of Conduct at
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/page/faq#faqCodeConduct

Please don't:

* Post political or religious content as it is considered off-topic and not appropriate for this community.

Don

Lessons learned from their censoring program used in China. It is heavy handed and borders on Orwellian dystopia. Their zeal to provide a safe place inclusive and diverse has wrought upon us a monstrous big brother that exterminates free will and individuality forcing everyone to use the same bland wording.

I've noted that, so when my comment trying to explain the history of doctorate degrees, and why an earned Ed.D. IS a doctorate degree, I am still at a loss as to why my comment, which I've edited several times to attempt to remove many possible terms offensive to AI, is still against their guidelines. I came here looking for similar answers as everyone else. Can anyone please, also, give me an idea what's wrong with this? (I had to take out reference to where I found the information in the first paragraph because it was considered a "link" rather than a citation, which bothered me because I don't want to be accused of plagiarism, so I will note here it comes from History-dot-com and hopefully won't get flagged for that):

A cursory search of the internet finds this fact: "Biden returned to the University of Delaware to pursue her doctorate in education, which she earned in 2007."

Jill *did* the work, it is *not* an "honorary" degree. "Honorary" means that it is bestowed, not that the person in question went to school. There's a huge difference. I am a historian with a Masters of Arts degree, who was studying for my Ph.D. For those who are unknowledgeable about education and degrees, here's some history: the Ph.D., or Doctorate of Philosophy (translated into English), is one of the oldest degrees one has been able to achieve, nearly 1,000 years old, and has been obtainable since the MIDDLE AGES.An M.D., or medical doctorate, on the other hand, has only been achievable for about 200 years at the most.Dr. Biden's degree, the Ed.D., has been around for about 100 years.I was in the dissertation phase of my Ph.D. when I had to stop my studies because I couldn't trust home health care assistants to not cause my mother - a nurse who had cancer - to die sooner than the cancer would cause her to. It's one of the many reasons I feel education matters.Everyone who goes to college calls their professors DOCTOR because the professors have doctorates. There are *many* different kinds of them, but Biden has one, that was earned by doing the school work.Whether or not people respect her as a person is a personal matter. But she did *earn* a doctorate degree, and more importantly, earned the RIGHT to be called DR. BIDEN, whether that bothers people or not.

I have edited it down to this:

A cursory search of the internet finds this fact: "Biden returned to the University of Delaware to pursue her doctorate in education, which she earned in 2007."
Jill did the work, it is not an honorary degree. "Honorary" means that it is bestowed, not that the person in question went to school. There's a huge difference.
I am a historian with a Masters of Arts degree, who was studying for my Ph.D. For those who are unknowledgeable about education and degrees, here's some history: the Ph.D., or Doctorate of Philosophy (translated into English), is one of the oldest degrees one has been able to achieve, nearly 1,000 years old, and has been obtainable since the MIDDLE AGES.
An M.D., or medical doctorate, on the other hand, has only been achievable for about 200 years at the most. 
Dr. Biden's degree, the Ed.D., has been around for about 100 years.
Everyone who goes to college calls their professors DOCTOR because the professors have doctorates. There are many different kinds of them, but Biden has one, that was earned by doing the school work.
Whether or not people respect her as a person is a personal matter. But she did earn a doctorate degree, and more importantly, earned the RIGHT to be called DR. Biden.

STILL violates their guidelines. WHAT is it that bothers them, HISTORY??? I mean, I'm used, by now, to people being agitated by History lessons. I always polled my students at the beginning of each semester, "who here hates History?" That's because most of them were taking History courses as core curriculum, not because they wanted to, and at least 2/3 to 3/4 of the hands would rise. I'd ask again at the end of the semester, and only one or two brave souls would respond at that time. Also, I can make people fall in love with it. But that's neither here nor there with this AI. I don't understand what it has against learning about doctorate degrees, and the FACT that Biden earned her degree. I'm going to shorten it EVEN MORE.

It now reads:

A cursory search of the internet finds this fact: "Biden returned to the University of Delaware to pursue her doctorate in education, which she earned in 2007."
It is not an honorary degree. "Honorary" means that it is bestowed, not that the person in question went to school. There's a huge difference.
I am a historian. Here's some history about education and degrees: the Ph.D., or Doctorate of Philosophy (translated into English), is one of the oldest degrees people have been able to achieve, nearly 1,000 years old; since the MIDDLE AGES.
An M.D., or medical doctorate, on the other hand, has only been achievable for about 200 years at the most. 
Dr. Biden's degree, the Ed.D., has been around for about 100 years.
Whether or not people respect her as a person is a personal matter. But she did earn a doctorate degree, and more importantly, earned the RIGHT to be called Dr. Biden.

Still not acceptable. I don't get it. That's as low as I'm willing to take it before I fully believe that MSN is trying to be political.

KellyRusinack wrote:

I've noted that, so when my comment trying to explain the history of doctorate degrees, and why an earned Ed.D. IS a doctorate degree, I am still at a loss as to why my comment, which I've edited several times to attempt to remove many possible terms offensive to AI, is still against their guidelines. I came here looking for similar answers as everyone else. Can anyone please, also, give me an idea what's wrong with this? (I had to take out reference to where I found the information in the first paragraph because it was considered a "link" rather than a citation, which bothered me because I don't want to be accused of plagiarism, so I will note here it comes from History-dot-com and hopefully won't get flagged for that):

[snip]

Still not acceptable. I don't get it. That's as low as I'm willing to take it before I fully believe that MSN is trying to be political.

Sorry, but...

You aren't communicating with MSN here. No one here can answer your questions about moderation.

Here's my canned response on moderation. Please see, in particular, point 4. I will also add that submitting Feedback will be a waste of time.

I can't explain the moderation of comments to MSN articles, but here are some observations.

1. You may find useful information at https://www.msn.com/en-us/community/guideline 
2. There were so many unacceptable comments that commenting was shut down for a few months not too long ago.
3. Now that commenting is allowed again, moderation is very restrictive.
4. Moderation is a mess. It's being done via AI, via a bot, not humans and is random and inexplicable.
5. If a comment you tried to post was banned, that will be in your activity feed, and you can

appeal that decision.

6. I've searched but have not found a way to contact MSN staff regarding this moderation except the Feedback link that's at the bottom of nearly every MSN webpage. If you receive a reply to the feedback, it will be a generic reply that doesn't address your specific issue.

Don

I got blocked when I called an MSN article garbage (because, like a lot of them, it was).