Absolutely correct. Their moderation idea quoted here sounds horrible, as in 'we'll take you to room 101 for re-education' horrible. You just point users to t

Absolutely correct. Their moderation idea quoted here sounds horrible, as in 'we'll take you to room 101 for re-education' horrible. You just point users to the moderation/conduct guidelines and ban them if they continue to offend. Human moderation against clearly set community expectations for behaviour is the only effective way. And if things are going to get too spicy, do the same as always and ban religious/political discussion altogether. The reason we have such massive issues with Twitter/FB/etc is becuase they essentially said they were gigantic open public spaces with no moderation guidelines at all, then started enforcing arbitrary 'moderation' based on political or cultural biases, including banning content instead of bad behaviour (which it seems a lot of people out there - including the WSJ staffer writing the article - have a really hard time understanding the difference between). HalloApp will avoid the problem by having the 50 user group limit, but how long until they get the 'feature request' to allow bigger and bigger groups? It also sounds almost exactly like Facebook groups, so what's new there aside paying for it? I would be cautious with this platform being created from ex-Twitter employees, they will continue to implement 'misinformation' policies that police content rather than behaviour, but time will tell. It's interesting to see it all come round again to basically the forums of old: Specific interest groups, smaller scale, moderation to suit. Who knew that worked...