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
The problem here is that the default assumption is that everyone on the internet is under the jurisdiction of US law, when the majority in fact are not.

These are global platforms with global membership, simply stating that “if it is free speech in America it should be allowed” isn’t a workable concept.

>>comte7+9Q1
How about saying that if it is free speech in America it should be allowed in America, but censored in countries where it is against the law? It seems very easy to say.

>>pessim+jU1
So different users aren’t able to see full threads based on their location? You’re seemingly randomly able to respond in some circumstances and not others?

When there are people all over the globe participating in the same discussion, you can’t realistically have an odd patchwork of rules. It’s very common for people on this forum, for example, to be commenting on their experiences in Europe, where free speech is heavily curtailed in comparison to the states. How do you manage such threads?

>>comte7+oY1
> "So different users aren’t able to see full threads based on their location? You’re seemingly randomly able to respond in some circumstances and not others?"

Of course. That is what they've demanded, so that is what they get.

> "When there are people all over the globe participating in the same discussion, you can’t realistically have an odd patchwork of rules. "

On the contrary: You must have this. As a matter of law. There is no alternative, other than withdrawing from those countries entirely and ignoring the issue of people accessing your site anyway (which is what happens in certain extreme situations, states under sanctions, etc)

> " It’s very common for people on this forum, for example, to be commenting on their experiences in Europe, where free speech is heavily curtailed in comparison to the states. How do you manage such threads? "

Here are the options:

1) Do not do business in those countries.

2) Provide different services for those countries to reflect their legal requirements.

There is no way to provide a globally consistent experience because laws are often in mutual conflict (one state will for example prohibit discussion of homosexuality and another state will prohibit discriminating on the basis of sexual preference)