I absolutely love the basic idea behind Ceasefire. I think hosting any online forum, no matter how well-meant, raises some sticky issues. I'd love to hear thei

I absolutely love the basic idea behind Ceasefire. I think hosting any online forum, no matter how well-meant, raises some sticky issues. I'd love to hear their thoughts about certain aspects of their terms of service [0] and Rules [1]: > As a User of the Service, you agree not to: ... 1. Use the Service to create, publish, copy, share, or distribute any Content, whether in whole or in part, which may be libelous, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful to any third party. The legal standards for these concepts vary greatly from country to country. I'm probably mistaken, but is this saying that a person in the U.S. cannot post a comment that would be illegal to post from certain authoritarian / monarchist / theocratic countries. I doubt Chinese courts care about Delaware law. > This rule prohibits any submission, comment, or ongoing discussion that could endanger an individual, which includes but is not limited to: ... Promoting/advocating abuse. Even in debates regarding what constitutes "abuse"? If the goal is to have meaningful discussion of touchy topics, debates on these topics couldn't really happen. > You have the written consent, release, and/or permission of each and every identifiable individual person in your Content to use the name or likeness of each and every such identifiable individual person to enable inclusion and use of your Content in any manner contemplated by the Site and these Terms of Use. Wouldn't this mean nobody could even mention, e.g., Bill Gates, without his explicit permission? > Your Content is not false or misleading. Is "false" content never allowed? A good debate typically requires explicitly stating premises, which are subject to being challenged as the debate progresses. Should this be tweaked to account for false statements that seem to have been made in good faith? > Your Content is not obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, violent, harassing, libelous, slanderous, or otherwise objectionable (as determined by us). Are there plans to clarify these at some point? People hold such varied views of what falls into these categories that it seems impossible to guess what you'd find acceptable. And what about debates which focus on whether or not particular views, practices, etc. are obscene / lewd / filthy? > Your Content does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third party. According to what country's laws? Again, I doubt the U.K. courts care about Delaware law. [0] https://ceasefire.net/terms-of-service https://ceasefire.net/terms-of-service [1] https://ceasefire.net/rules https://ceasefire.net/rules