> I started seeing a lot of comments claiming that you need scale to do moderation, anti-spam, anti-fraud, etc., around the time Zuckerberg, in response to Eliz

> I started seeing a lot of comments claiming that you need scale to do moderation, anti-spam, anti-fraud, etc., around the time Zuckerberg, in response to Elizabeth Warren calling for the breakup of big tech companies, claimed that breaking up tech companies would make content moderation issues substantially worse Well Zuckerberg is correct in context. Politicians don't mean moderation as in everyone is being civil with each other or garbage results. That isn't a political issue. They mean things like supporting the local censorship regime which is usually country-specific. So from a political perspective, more centralisation is the only way to successfully implement moderation. Because moderation doesn't mean "behave to community standards" - it means "comply with politician's standards". Ie, moderating what people can say as part of their legal and political engagement with society. I recall when Australia had a suppression order about Cardinal Pell, high ranking official in the Catholic church who was convicted of various sex offences. And in fairness the case was a political football so the order was reasonable. It was eventually overturned but reputational damage was done because, unfortunately for the courts, there are too many foreign news organisations so the block failed miserably and it was major news in Australia without any official Australian news sources covering it. It would be relatively easy to enforce that sort of block if the major foreign distributors were just Facebook or YouTube. They'd probably cooperate with the Australian authorities on request.