5 ms·
I would generally agree with everything you said here except that Option 1 is really just Option 3 except the "way they see fit" is very minimal. Moderation st
by slg 7y ago
I would generally agree with everything you said here except that Option 1 is really just Option 3 except the "way they see fit" is very minimal. Moderation still exists on those "unmoderated" sites. No right-minded person supports completely unmoderated content like no right-minded person supports completely unregulated free speech. Child porn is the most obvious example of an exception to both. We can all agree that we don't want to see that and don't want to host it on our platforms. Once you accept that, it basically becomes a question of negotiating where that line is. It is reminiscent of that old inappropriate Churchill joke about haggling over price [1].
[1] - https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/300099-churchill-madam-would-you-sleep-with-me-for-five-million https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/300099-churchill-madam-woul...
- SkyBelow 7y agoI think a difference of kinds and not just degrees can be established between moderating just illegal content. But maybe not, given that there is a lot of different interpretations of what is illegal and judgment calls have to be made over that, as well as issues of jurisdiction and even issues involving laws that may be unconstitutional.
- yifanl 7y agoNeither what's illegal and what's immoral are static (though I concede that it is often slower to change laws than public perception)
- mirimir 7y agoYes. The problem is that, once the ability exists to nuke whatever you consider to be illegal, someone else will use it to nuke stuff that you like. If every country could impose its standards on the Internet, there'd be no Internet. It's only worked so far because the US has strong free speech rights, and has dominated.
- johnisgood 7y agoAnd at the same time my ISP cares less and censors less here in Eastern Europe... :P You will most likely not get a letter for downloading movies, games, and so forth.
- mirimir 7y agoGood point. I was thinking China, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, etc. But then, in the EU, you have the Right to be Forgotten ;)
- slg 7y agoThe problem with just limiting it to illegal content is who gets to decide what is illegal? Websites don't have jurisdictions in the classical sense. Should website follow German laws and ban Nazi imagery? Should they follow follow Polish law and ban blasphemy? Should they follow Russian law and ban homosexual imagery? Should they follow Chinese law and ban support of for an independent Hong Kong?
- mirimir 7y agoSome huge percentage of Western mass media is illegal under Saudi law.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- danielheath 7y agoJurisdiction is key. Your post is illegal? Where? In the jurisdiction of the server? The poster? The moderator? Anywhere in the world?
- mirimir 7y agoAnywhere, given requisite extradition agreements.
- jimbob45 7y agoLess "the way they see fit" and more "only remove criminal activity".
- DuskStar 7y ago> Child porn is the most obvious example of an exception to both. We can all agree that we don't want to see that and don't want to host it on our platforms. I wouldn't be surprised if some site like 8chan was happy to completely remove moderation/filtering if the federal penalties for unknowingly distributing CP were removed. Basically, "look at 8chan! Even they restrict CP, so everyone supports moderation!" doesn't actually follow, since 8chan is legally required to restrict CP under federal law, unknowing or not.
- jimbob45 7y agoCP isn't the only problem of theirs. Revenge porn (or leaked celeb pics) are just as vulnerable to lawsuit.