4 ms·

Outside of what the law prescribes - because that's a whole different topic with more grey area than not. If it's what the law prescribes then I'm not contendin

Outside of what the law prescribes - because that's a whole different topic with more grey area than not. If it's what the law prescribes then I'm not contending that. > you won’t have a choice but to moderate in some way This is the way that moderation has been done in the past 10-15 years, but does it have to be? Why couldn't a platform provide user-level controls over what they see instead of making those decisions for them? Early forum software actually did somewhat of a good job of this, and I remember building phpBB extensions that enabled more user-level control. Even with this you can go from super granular to just a couple of primary options. It becomes a tagging/filtering mechanism on behalf of the client. Edit: UGC platforms may discover that there's some value in finding what filtering options their users use.

makeitdouble 5y ago
To be clear, just following legal requirements is no simple task in most countries, and it might already require a significant moderation effort depending on how motivated your users are. > does it have to be? In most cases moderation is less about what users want or don’t want to see, and more about what you want your platform to be. For instance people are OK with product suggestions when they go on Amazon, but if your job posting site becomes an endless stream of Amazon links you’ll want to curb that. And perhaps your users find interesting products in all these links, but from your perspective it will kill your business (except if you pivot into becoming a product listing site of course)