> After all the very reason they are in this “difficult position” is their business decision to insist on providing centrally-controlled global social media pla

> After all the very reason they are in this “difficult position” is their business decision to insist on providing centrally-controlled global social media platforms, trying to push the round peg of a myriad of cultures into a square hole of a single moderation policy. Facebook does have decentralized moderation. Every facebook group could in theory individually decide that Qanon conspiracies are unacceptable and remove them, and indeed most do. The problem is a minority won't, and the crazies just aggregate there. And the same principle applies whether the decentralized authorities are subreddit moderators or small site admins or what have you. Moderation is fundamentally forced upon people against their individual will for the sake of the larger community. If the "baddies" self-censored, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Decentralized authority can work in situations where people can't freely associate, for example if my town forbids me from putting a "Hail Satan" sign on my lawn, it's a significant burden to move to a town of satanists, and even if I did, it would no longer be a problem for the town I left. But online it's trivial to find some place that will let me post "hail satan" and ignoring its existence will just have to be good enough for those who don't like it. There is no "local" on the internet - there is no distance nor natural barriers over which the actions of others lose potency. You are never more than a few keystrokes away from the deepest darkest pits of the internet, and there is no way of ensuring any concept stays in those pits. I am not in favor of global censorship as I feel the harm outweighs the good. Unfortunately, local censorship is not a way to have our cake and eat it too.