Congratulations, you're at level, well, 1, 2, or 3. Better gear up for level 4 because, guess what, hate speech is constitutionally-protected free speech. Anyo

Congratulations, you're at level, well, 1, 2, or 3. Better gear up for level 4 because, guess what, hate speech is constitutionally-protected free speech. Anyone seriously suggesting that First Amendment jurisprudence is a good basis for laying out content moderation guidelines is misinformed about what that would entail. Here's the thing: the jurisprudence says that no moderation is permissible. Hate speech is a good dividing line for when you realize the consequences: it's something that almost everyone will agree is something that should be moderated away while at the same time being emphatically constitutionally-protected free speech. And that's the point of the article. There is no clear, bright-line, easily digestible definition of free speech. No matter where you try to draw the line, no matter how much detail you try to put in it, at the scale of a 100 million global users, you're going to have people who are upset at that line--and wanting to push it in both directions simultaneously. You may think that Musk is making the line better, but the point is that the same forces that pushed all the major social networks to the same place are going to result in pushing him to the exact same place as well.