[obvious disclaimer of I am NOT advocating for child porn] Why would spam, phishing, child porn be the 'universal' ones? If you are making an argument that it

[obvious disclaimer of I am NOT advocating for child porn] Why would spam, phishing, child porn be the 'universal' ones? If you are making an argument that it should all be opt in...then it should all be opt in. Otherwise, this is the same drawing of a moral line that we all tend to do where we call ours obvious and others subjective. Maybe some people want the spam? Shouldn't the spammers have the ability to share it in case people want it? My point isn't to argue for those things...its to say if we just accept that content moderation is subjective...we can't then label some things as subjective and some things as not, the framework should just be - laws of the state/country/equivalent structure. Those provide mechanisms (theoretically but more soundly) for feedback that corporations do not and frankly should not on the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable content. C.f., Nazi imagery in most of Europe.