zlacker

>>feross+(OP)
I think this view is hopelessly naive in the real world. You could easily make "moderation" (as defined by the article) the same as "censorship" (as defined by the article) by producing a lot of false, semi-false and nonsense content to drown out the signal in the noise.

Our concepts of free speech, censorship and moderation are simply outdated on modern social media - when you have systems designed to encourage and spread low-effort, novel, emotional and manipulative content (e.g. twitter), no amount of "tweaks" to such systems can fix the problem.

Instead of trying to fix systems originally designed for marketing, why not actually design systems meant for disseminating and checking information from the ground up? I bet that would look way different compared to twitter or facebook.

It doesn't have to involve moderation or censorship - it could just mean giving disproporitonately more powerful voice to experts willing to explain disinformation, for example (rather than having their voice drown in the retweet popularity contest).

>>spion+rF
> Our concepts of free speech, censorship and moderation are simply outdated on modern social media

I disagree wholeheartedly. These concepts are now more important than ever in human history.

>>Andrew+qQ
What does free speech mean if its drowned in novelty, half-truths and a popularity contest? Is it free speech if the network itself blocks people from elaborating by artificially limiting the number of characters, thereby causing only the most provocative and shallow takes to take hold?

We could (and should) demand better.