3 ms·

I think it becomes too hard to define good faith moderation. Unless maybe you try to define how big a company is? One of the reasons Elon Musk bought Twitter

I think it becomes too hard to define good faith moderation. Unless maybe you try to define how big a company is? One of the reasons Elon Musk bought Twitter was because the Babylon Bee was moderated for misgendering a trans person. I could see an argument for why this might not be ok, but for me the same argument to me would fall apart on the /lgbt or /trans subreddits. I don’t love the idea (nor do I think it’s feasible to distinguish) when you’re social media site becomes a “public square” and now your moderation decisions have to have some standard… regulated by the government? Which I think circles back to being a valid 1st amendment concern.

lliamander 2y ago
> One of the reasons Elon Musk bought Twitter was because the Babylon Bee was moderated for misgendering a trans person. I could see an argument for why this might not be ok, but for me the same argument to me would fall apart on the /lgbt or /trans subreddits. That's sort of precisely my point. It's all about social media companies setting forth clear policies about what is acceptable on their platform, and ensuring that their moderation is consistent with that policy. If Twitter wants to ban misgendering, let them. But they have to tell people. You can't claim to be the town square on the one hand and try to shape the discourse on the other. I personally would prefer to use social platforms which establish boundaries on content. HN is an excellent example, and essentially the only "social media" I publish on for that very reason. But HN makes sure to tell people what is acceptable.