First, thank you so much for your kind comments. Sometimes I get discouraged and do not want to continue a conversation b/c it simply has ceased to be fun. You are engaging here as you press for truth and I appreciate that.

Second, I may have missed something - no not in your words but in the OP, where I only just now saw the edit that included the actual examples, before which I was arguing in the dark (also I was not certain if we were talking about the comments or the reports about those, although I did presume the former). So now I am confused more than ever: almost every single one of those seems negative to me! "I hope he gets what he voted for In the end" is the very definition of schadenfreude, is it not?! Phrases such as "ruinously expensive", "So, let’s be optimistic. Maybe global capitalism will collapse...", and so on. The last one seems legit though: it is pointing out a problem with the actual study. Maybe I am not smart enough to see though that all of these are of the same type? Perhaps, because the "you will know it when you see it" argument is indeed a slippery concept. But if the last example truly is different as it seems to me, then perhaps the response to it might be to remove the entire post that it refers to rather than remove simply that comment, for being "negative"?

Now with my head spinning I need to get my bearings: are you trying to say that continuing the community forward as it has been is too tiring on the moderation team, and so you want to change it? And if so, you don't simply want it to become yet another "news" community, where pratically anything goes (hurtling insults, vomiting toxicity, etc.), as all of the other ones seem to be? (fortunately I am unfairly exaggerating here - actually e.g. !politics@beehaw.org seems quite sane - but definitely the trend across the Threadiverse seems more towards rather than away from toxicity) Instead, you want to keep it "mostly" as it was, but widen the scope just a tiny bit, e.g. to allow the last comment but none of the ones before it? If so, then I would be okay with that. Again, you could rather remove the entire post that it refuted if it was no longer "positive", but so long as the comment itself isn't too negative - e.g. is just straight-up schadenfreude "I hope you get what you voted for (implication: AND DIE, a HORRIBLE, AGONIZING TORTOROUS death)" vibes (sorry for expanding out that implication, but isn't that WHY people are trying to avoid the schadenfreude, because the simple words "get" and "voted" and "for" are not upsetting, but rather the concepts that they point to, which touches on DEEP psychological issues that some people may not be in a position to handle yet, at that moment? I have been there multiple times this year as I watch the USA government situation before my very eyes.)

BTW I hold the same view as you about the children: they not only suspect, they KNOW when they are being lied to. They need extra care and attention to be told how to process that information, rather than assume that they are incapable and so avoid the issue entirely. People die, it's a reality. Then again, I doubt that there are any truly actual children on the Threadiverse - at best we might have some teenagers who would already have had that bubble popped, but nowhere do we come close to needing to avoid talking about things for the reasons of "bUt ThInK oF tHe ChIlDrEn!?". I rather see this community as those adults needing a break from the toxicity that is present in so many other places around the Threadiverse, particularly surrounding any "news" topics.

That last example comment... it is written respectfully, it expresses empathy, it cites facts and logical reasoning, it continues beyond that to connect the chain all the way towards why the article might be fraudulent (or if not factually so, then at least fraudulently over-hyping the reality of its claims when in reality nothing is yet known, but for $$$ reasons someone would rather claim to know more than is yet possible without doing the actual research). I guess I could see where that one is called "negative", but it is not an example of true "negativity" - do you see what I mean in drawing that distinction? That one does not offend me in the slightest.

Whereas "I hope he dies!" (more politely phrased as "I hope he gets what he voted for", but the same concept, yet its true meaning made abundantly more clear by following that up with "in the end" - why the END do you think? unless they mean the FINAL end, for that person at least? and even emphasizing it with the capital "In the" like an ominous phrasing that draws your attention to specifically that portion of the sentence) offends me much more. I blocked !politics@lemmy.world because it was just constantly like that, and I am thinking about blocking others like !nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz for the same reason (albeit to a far lesser degree ofc, still, how much shit is okay to appear in your water that you want to drink?).

Then again, while that is my vision for this place, I am not the one having to put in the work to read all that and decide whether removal is warranted. I have really strained here to convey my vision, definitely using WAAAAY too many words, and in my zeal all these little stories and tangents that I hoped would help but probably by adding length may even have hurt a little, as compared to if I had thought about it more and written it more concisely? But above all of that, the people who have to do the clean-up I really do feel like should get the highest say in the matter. I am so glad to have a community where especially the ubiquitous schadenfreude is kept at bay, at least as best as possible. I would REALLY hate to see more schadenfreude come into this community. But especially comments like that last example? Yeah I am totally okay with that one. Disagreements voiced respectfully, with empathy, may be negative but not contributing to negativity in my book. At which point we might have ended up agreeing with one another - e.g. similarly to how you mentioned in your country, forced "positivity" is not always a "positive" thing, right? Well the latter part is definitely true, though whether we fully agree or not I am not entirely certain - yet hopefully by talking it back and forth, with respect and empathy, we gained some better understanding of each others' position? And THAT is an uplifting thing!:-D