zlacker

>>feross+(OP)
As I've said for a long time, I don't mind moderation, I just want to be in charge of what I see. Give me the tools that the moderators have, let me be able to filter out bots at some confidence level; let me see "removed" posts, banned accounts; don't mess with my searches unless I've asked for that explicitly.

Power to the people.

>>brigan+Ms
I don't think that really deals with beheading videos, incitement to terrorism, campaigns to harass individuals and groups, child porn, and many cases where online communities document or facilitate crimes elsewhere.

>>PaulHo+Wa1
Child porn is illegal. Are beheading videos illegal? Incitement to terrorism is probably a crime (though I'd argue that it should be looked at under the imminent lawless action test[1] as it's speech). So all of these would be removed and are not part of a moderation discussion.

As to "many cases where online communities document or facilitate crimes elsewhere", why criminalise the speech if the action is already criminalised?

That leaves only "Campaigns to harass individuals and groups". Why wouldn't moderation tools as powerful as the ones employed by Twitter's own moderators deal with that?

[1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/970/incitement-to-i...

>>brigan+fo1
It's the "documentation of the crime" aspect of child pornography that makes it illegal. It is still technically illegal in parts of the US to possess, say, drawn illustrations of pornography featuring minors (what 日本人 call "lolicon") but the legal precedents are such that it can't really be prosecuted.

That is, it's not clear in the US you can ban something on the basis of it being immoral, you need to have the justification that it is "documentation of a crime".

>>PaulHo+at1
That's genuinely interesting (have an upvote) but a social media site's responsibility in a situation such as this is to assess legality, not prosecutability, hence it would be removed.