> As a central body it can still retain the ability to shutdown ID of non-acceptable content like ... The problem with that is who gets to choose what is accep

> As a central body it can still retain the ability to shutdown ID of non-acceptable content like ... The problem with that is who gets to choose what is acceptable and what is not? If I make criticisms about something or someone's actions, is that "non-acceptable" content? During these discussions, the lowest common denominator is used, but the reality is that definitions change or people try to expand the definition to include what one does not like or agree with. The price for free speech and expression comes a great price with many risks, but it is worth it. We have seen centralization fail time and time again with platforms like Facebook and Youtube censoring (demonetizing) unfavorable opinions or ideas. > I’d happily donate to have such an unbiased body. As soon as you start picking, choosing and expanding what is acceptable and what is not, it is no longer unbiased.