> and they never will be. Therein lies the fundamental assumption that I don't agree with. I take part in online spaces where I am a moderator and others where

> and they never will be. Therein lies the fundamental assumption that I don't agree with. I take part in online spaces where I am a moderator and others where I merely feel confident that the moderators care about my concerns. I know that this is harder to scale. But I don't think it's impossible. That feels almost silly to me to say. Systems can be made incrementally more transparent and more robust, therefore why should we expect there to be a hard physical limit on how transparent and respectful moderation can be? However, based on that assumption that it's physically impossible, I still don't think I agree that speech should be completely unrestricted. I'd maybe prefer to have tools to weed out dangerous elements even if means some good ideas are being censored, but that would require some really nuanced examination.