[hkt]

Well, the name at least makes it clear that author of the system knows what it will be used for. I've reached the conclusion after years of crypto quackery and free speech nutjobs that actually, publishing platforms need to moderate what they are used for and by who. Free for alls like this attract some of the work people imaginable.

[GhostVII]

Why not give users more filtering options, rather than censoring certain views? Let the users choose what type of content they want to see, rather choosing for them.

[ajacksified]

Because sometimes one doesn't want to host a platform for, say, Holocaust denial. Platforms can, and should, moderate speech pursuant to the values of the company, which _can_ mean anything from heavy moderation to none at all.

People who want to take part in "fringe" discussions, whether it goes agains the culture, or assholes (white supremacists) will end up on whatever platform they feel the most free and secure. But what happens when a group of antisemites discovers a Jewish community, and decides to comment on their posts, and harass them over PMs? The burden is placed on them to add filters for all of the users, or the content posted, which harms the growth of the group; a new member may visit the Jewish community, see it full of hate, and decide never to join. Through inaction, your platform has traded the safety and security of one group for another, and in my opinion, it's those who seek to harm others that should be removed, not the other way around.

I worked at Reddit for three years (left two years ago), and it's taken me a long time to realize this.

[GhostVII]

I suppose it depends what kind of platform you are hosting. With something like Vitriol, where you are mostly posting content independent of other people, it doesn't seem like there is much possibility for abuse. But with something like Reddit I can see how moderation is more important, since you can direct message people.

[vitriolum]

Exactly. It's not a community, it's more a tool for publishing content that other people consciously decide to follow. The point being that this content can't be shut down by a central organization, but will disappear if nobody cares about it.

[shkkmo]

> The burden is placed on them to add filters for all of the users, or the content posted, which harms the growth of the group; a new member may visit the Jewish community, see it full of hate, and decide never to join

This is how it should be. Communities (not their platforms) should be responsible for policing themselves. They should not be dependent on the platform to decides what types of speech are not appropriate in their community.

A community of historians should be the ones deciding if a post in their community questioning facts about holocaust is a holocaust denial misinformation or actual scholarly research. This is not a responsibility we should be asking our platforms to take off our shoulders.

> Through inaction, your platform has traded the safety and security of one group for another, and in my opinion, it's those who seek to harm others that should be removed, not the other way around.

Nobody should be removed by the platform, instead the platform should provide people with the tools to protect themselves from all kinds of harassment on that platform, whether it is harassment of people based on their religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or political beliefs.

Platforms choose to censor to protect their PR image, not to protect you. Why would you trust them?

[egwynn]

Because platforms are businesses and it’s sometimes cheaper to just ban the groups that are bad for business.

[matt4077]

Because platforms are businesses, and businesses are run by humans, some of whom manage to preserve their humanity, and don’t want to see their work being used by lowlifes spreading mindless hate.