This is one of the worst articles I've read in a long time. The author is able to weasel their way out of holding them accountable to their opinions when they s

This is one of the worst articles I've read in a long time. The author is able to weasel their way out of holding them accountable to their opinions when they say that if porn can "thrive" with such extreme moderation, social media can "thrive" with a lesser degree. The problem with this is that they don't specify what in particular social media companies should do. The inability to post content without it being moderated beforehand is treated as if it's a good thing, suggesting it's something social media companies should do but distancing themselves from the implication enough to maintain plausible deniability. Especially ironic is that many porn sites make much of their money through ads that harvest personal data or prey on male insecurity. There are strong arguments I disagree with in favor of regulating social media. Those arguments are also prescriptive, not general "we should do something". This is a very weak one. Downvotes are the single best indicator of the problem with volunteer content moderation. People don't just downvote for bad comments, they downvote for comments they disagree with. Good luck getting edgy content through YouTube's Volunteer Force, it'll hurt causes you may agree with.