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
That's correct and that's actually how it works right now (Germany has different speech laws and Twitter attempts to comply with them[1]). However, it is an American company and it's not unreasonable to follow the American law in America. I would also think it's quite possible to use the network effect of the service to bully places like Germany into allowing greater expression, or simply providing it on the sly by making it easy for Germans to access what they want. Although, I do see the EU is trying to do the same in reverse, probably to (as is its wont) to create a tech customs union that allows its own tech unicorns to appear (something it has failed miserably at, in part because of its restrictive laws).

If I had a tool that could (at least attempt to) filter out anti-semitism or Holocaust denial, then Germany could have that set to "on" to comply with the law. I'm all for democracies deciding what laws they want.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-hatecrime-idUSKBN...