1. Yeah I agree, it is, albeit a bit more indirect. By making it more direct and explicit then content moderation can be more granular and have a tighter feedba

1. Yeah I agree, it is, albeit a bit more indirect. By making it more direct and explicit then content moderation can be more granular and have a tighter feedback loop and ultimately controlled by users—which I think is a win 2. If there’s one thing I know about wealthy people, it’s that there’s wealthy people on both sides of any given politcal/social issue. So for every one that wants to allow certain speech there will be one that wants to ban it. Also people can organize from the grassroots to form large pools of capital and have their voice heard if the issue is important enough. 3. Although your hypothetical is a bit sensationalist and off topic, I’ll entertain it. If the outcome of such a scheme really did lower the homicide total by 10%, then it’d be hard to argue against it vs. the status quo as it is an objectively better outcome.