> 1) Real juries perform exactly as you describe. The vast majority of people want to get out. This is not different Its a requirement in real life. If you try

> 1) Real juries perform exactly as you describe. The vast majority of people want to get out. This is not different Its a requirement in real life. If you try making it a requirement to use your platform, I dont see why any users would stay. I think users will overwhelmingly prefer to have the content curated for them, so they dont have to look at child porn and beheadings every week for the opportunity to use social media. > 2) That's exactly the point. If a group of random people can't agree that some post is hate speech, then its not hate speech beyond reasonable doubt. This sounds like an incredibly quick way to make your platform just a collection of the worst parts of the internet. A place with a TOS determined by the users where you need an overwhelming majority[1] to convict anything isnt going to last long with people who just wanna share some pictures with friends. [1] Your post says unanimous but Ill give it the benefit of the doubt and assume thats not literal, since getting a unanimous decision is essentially impossible on the internet.