>Yes, but that means deciding which content is harmful, and that's where we are now. Figuratively, you end up with lead-lickers coming out of the woodwork sayin

>Yes, but that means deciding which content is harmful, and that's where we are now. Figuratively, you end up with lead-lickers coming out of the woodwork saying that their way of life is being stifled by regulation/moderation. There might be something to be said for instead of limiting speech, increasing the 'reporting requirements'. This isn't a fully formed position of mine but rules along the lines of no anonynomous speech[0] and stricter fraud[1][2] rules are imo compatible with free speech and its ideals while helping to manage fraud and propaganda. [0] So if an AI wrote a blog spam post, it should be at minimum illegal to not have the AI in the byline, with e.g. a unique identifier. [1] Say loudly and publicly that there is a pedophile ring in the basement of a pizzeria, with no evidence, go to jail. [2] Not that such rules can't/haven't been abused before though.