5 ms·
I'm inclined to agree. I certainly value free speech, but I don't think I would want to run a free speech platform. I think I would want to moderate content in
by throwaway894345 4y ago
I'm inclined to agree. I certainly value free speech, but I don't think I would want to run a free speech platform. I think I would want to moderate content in order to cultivate fruitful discussion, which is maybe a kind of censorship in some strict sense, but the motives between moderation and censorship (as we colloquially think of them) are different--moderation says "this isn't productive or respectful" and censorship says "we want to squash discussion of those ideas to the extent we are able". That said, I appreciate that the line is often blurry, and a lot of authoritarian types will censor under the pretense of moderation
- anonym29 4y agoI'm a fairly strong libertarian, but moderation is more or less a mandate in the face of malware distribution, if from nothing but strictly reducing potential legal liability. I think the challenge from a site owner/operator's perspective ultimately boils down to how one chooses to defines the term "harm". Greater transparency, with clear examples of what is allowed, and what is not allowed for each category of moderation would probably be helpful for more sites to implement.