This was a quick comment placed elsewhere, but with a few sprinkles on top it’s worth sharing over here.

Woo boy, I’ve put a lot of thought into comment moderation. My own approach is to start from the premise that everyone’s time is finite and precious, and that each comment is a transfer of information between all parties viewing it. This changes moderation into a cost/benefit analysis: what do I and my readers gain from the time spent reading a comment, relative to the time saved by not reading it?

Someone expressing a view you know to be false can be worth posting, if your readers can gain some insight from it. If someone starts sealioning, the info content drops as you repeat common knowledge. Insults themselves don’t contribute any information beyond “I’m angry,” but when done with style can be worth the LULZ.

While [Jerry] Coyne is free to moderate his blog as he sees fit, by preventing comments from someone qualified to contribute useful information he’s denying his readers that information, potentially leaving them ignorant of why that person is wrong. For a scientist hoping to educate the public, that’s bad form.