The solution to online "censorship" IMO is to allow users to choose to view content which has been stripped of trolling vs. raw content. If this user control is

The solution to online "censorship" IMO is to allow users to choose to view content which has been stripped of trolling vs. raw content. If this user control is effective and accurate, most people will choose to hide trolls, and they'll lose most of their power. The big problem, more than anything, is that it isn't just "fuzzy" to define what constitutes trolling; it's very hard, and furthermore it's one of those problems where human-controlled fail-overs don't work. Individual moderators suck at controlling trolls on average, both because of their biases and their limited experience as finite people. I've seen this in action behind the scenes moderating more than one large Internet forum; sometimes it's very hard to determine whether a particular user deserves to be banned, particularly when people are vocal about controversial topics. The most effective way to promote civility, in my experience, is to ban certain topics altogether. So when people say "should we automatically remove trolls"", I think, well, should we build a fusion reactor? Should we desalinate all the water used in Los Angeles? Should we give people an MRI every time they might have fractured a bone? Should we pull a third of the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere? Should we eradicate mosquitoes? Should we build Hyperloop? Sure...