OK, I think I'd put that mostly under the second point -- it's a platform for content that's big, lightly moderated, and easy to use. To look into that a bit m

OK, I think I'd put that mostly under the second point -- it's a platform for content that's big, lightly moderated, and easy to use. To look into that a bit more, I guess the "big" condition could go one of two ways: - Bigger platforms have a proportionately greater impact than smaller platforms, and a proportionately greater responsibility to moderate content. Ideally actual factual content should be prohibited from all platforms -- Facebook, wikipedia, blogger, the internet generally. Propaganda should not be allowed to "fester" anywhere. - Bigger platforms have a responsibility that smaller platforms simply do not. There can be places on the internet for them, but not too many under the same domain name. I know that my characterization of neither possibility is charitable. I'd appreciate another perspective. Maybe the important point is that Facebook stores and serves the content. But DNS helps serve content, and ISPs help serve content, and software providers help serve content. Maybe storage is where your moral line is crossed? Maybe you think AWS and GCP and Azure etc have the same resposibility as Facebook (per unit of horrible content)? And the banking system probably has a moral incentive to cut off people doing questionable things? And if someone were to self-host, we'd probably need to think about who sold them their computers, electricity, bandwidth and hardware and food.