4 ms·

Smaller platforms would be more picky on who to invite. If they have power to ban users, they have responsibility to keep it clean.

• pixl97 4y ago
  Which means they don't grow at all typically. Really in the end that would push users to completely unmoderated forums, likely designed with protocols that are hard to block. The amount of bad actors and bad information would increase even further. And, these small sites you're talking about are apt to be overly responsible because of the potential risk. "Oh no you said the word bullet" BANGO BONGO, you got the BAN YO. But hey, most authoritarians would love it. They'll get a little bit of cash together and sue sites that talk about LGBT issues, or suicide prevention and say the content on those sites is terroristic in some way, further repressing speech.
  • deepsun 4y ago
    > they don't grow at all typically. Yep, as I said, internet would skew to a smaller web properties, and that's a good thing. > push users to completely unmoderated forums There's a counterexample -- Hacker News. Moderators here do a much better job at keeping it clean and focused on their intended audience than any of the big media. I'd be happy to see more of such focused forums than few huge "one-size-fits-all" platforms.
    • pixl97 4y ago
      I personally don't think it would. My guess is somewhere outside the US would host instead.
      • deepsun 4y ago
        A lot of illegal content is hosted outside the US naturally. But they would not be able to do business in the US (financial transactions with advertisers/data brokers), that's right.