So let's look at what happened in reality. Almost immediately sub-reddits pop up that are at the very least attempting to skirt the law, and often directly breaching the law- popular topics on reddit included creative interpretations of the age of consent for example, or indeed the requirement for consent at all. Oh and because anyone can create one these communities, the site turns into whack-a-mole.
The second thing that happened was communities popped up pretty much for the sole purpose of harassing's other communities. But enabling this sort of market place of moderation, you are providing a mechanism for a group of people to organize a way to attack your own platform. So now you have to step back in and we're back to censorship.
I also think that this article completely mischaracterizes what the free speech side of the debate want.
Twitter is already a whack-a-mole, but for a range of content that's much broader than just illegal content. A change like this would reduce their moderation burden.
> The second thing that happened was communities popped up pretty much for the sole purpose of harassing's other communities. But enabling this sort of market place of moderation, you are providing a mechanism for a group of people to organize a way to attack your own platform. So now you have to step back in and we're back to censorship.
You can ban harassing behaviour without banning open discussions.
Finally, I don't think the ACX proposal is exactly like reddit. Reddit still has moderation imposed by a third party, this moderation configuration is in your control.
You can. But you'll still have people screaming about how they were actually silenced for their political views. Which is exactly the situation we have today.
More transparent systems with less suppression or banning are clearly possible, but commercial entities don't want to hold themselves to strict rules which is why they keep the rules and processes opaque. This same trend is seen in both social media and app stores.