No-one's making anyone else default to publishing any ol' thing people send them. That's what's new and, I think, not obviously a reasonable thing to do. If the

No-one's making anyone else default to publishing any ol' thing people send them. That's what's new and, I think, not obviously a reasonable thing to do. If there'd been a magazine publisher in the '80s that defaulted to automatically publishing whatever people mailed in, unless a human happened to catch that it shouldn't go out, the obviously correct solution to folks at the time would be for them to stop doing that. Not hire offices full of people to look at terrible material all day to catch some fraction of the worst stuff (while still letting a lot through). Mine is an argument against "it's different because it's on the Internet", which as far as I can tell is the whole of the argument for this practice. Put it in the real world and it's instantly clear that they should just stop. > On the other hand, you're doing the right thing, right now, in choosing a social network that doesn't use images in almost any sense, has two moderators, and is broadcast-based nonetheless. Your post was just broadcast, brimble. "Yet you participate in society. Curious!" :-)