4 ms·
I am a little confused by your point. I don't disagree, I just don't see it as dictatorial for people to be allowed to decide what happens in their communities
by LatteLazy 4y ago
I am a little confused by your point. I don't disagree, I just don't see it as dictatorial for people to be allowed to decide what happens in their communities. In fact, I think they only way any community can actually function is to have the right to exclude bad content and bad actors. That's true for a church or a book club or hacker news or facebook or anyone else.
- untech 4y agoWell, I agree that moderation is useful for communities. I disagree that moderation standards should be defined by a regulator. On reddit, different communities have different moderation policies. Same for various chat groups. And there are resources with no moderation, like anonymous boards. This is fine. If you don’t like moderation policy of your community, argue for a change or create a fork. But don’t involve the government in it.
- LatteLazy 4y agoI don't think the regulator should define moderation standards. I am not sure what gave you that idea? That is not the current system OR the result of removing s.230. Though removing s230 would mean courts were much much more involved and moderations was much much heavier (or non-existent al-la 4Chan etc).