4 ms·

I 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 diff

I 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 ago
Neither 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 ago
Yes. 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 ago
  And 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 ago
    Good 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Some huge percentage of Western mass media is illegal under Saudi law.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
danielheath 7y ago
Jurisdiction is key. Your post is illegal? Where? In the jurisdiction of the server? The poster? The moderator? Anywhere in the world?
- mirimir 7y ago
  Anywhere, given requisite extradition agreements.

yifanl 7y ago

Neither 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 ago

Yes. 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 ago
And 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 ago
  Good 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 ago

The 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 ago
Some huge percentage of Western mass media is illegal under Saudi law.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

danielheath 7y ago

Jurisdiction is key. Your post is illegal? Where? In the jurisdiction of the server? The poster? The moderator? Anywhere in the world?

mirimir 7y ago
Anywhere, given requisite extradition agreements.