I didn't say it would be easy. Illegal content (threats, etc.) isn't a problem: it can be moderated out / censored, and if someone's unhappy about it, they wou

I didn't say it would be easy. Illegal content (threats, etc.) isn't a problem: it can be moderated out / censored, and if someone's unhappy about it, they would sue, and if they're right they'd win. I'm not sure "trolling" can be defined with objectivity; contrarian opinions are what makes freedom of speech interesting. What's difficult is spam: of zero value, extremely undesirable, and yet not illegal. The way HN traditionally did this, was to "kill" comments without erasing them; one could still read dead comments if one wanted. My point is there should be some kind of an appeals process in those matters. The moderators can't also be the judges of last resort.