[jf-]

What’s your point, that we can’t ensure perfect rules so let’s not have any? By extension we can’t ensure perfect government or laws so let’s not bother? I’m looking for a more charitable interpretation but there isn’t one.

Maybe some level of democratisation or at least community engagement, but there will always be people who are dissatisfied.

[hnuser1234]

The only hard rule I'll agree to is no direct threats of violence.

Shame storms would be most effectively fought with better education, not moderators. Don't make judgements based on hearsay. Internet moderators don't help when a shame storm grows larger than the internet.

Bit from the article:

The solution, then, is not to try to make shame storms well targeted, but to make it so they happen as infrequently as possible. Editors should refuse to run stories that have no value except humiliation, and readers should refuse to click on them. It is, after all, the moral equivalent of contributing your rock to a public stoning. We should all develop a robust sense of what is and is not any of our business. Shame can be useful—and even necessary—but it is toxic unless a relationship exists between two people first. A Twitter mob is no more a basis for salutary shaming than an actual mob is for reasoned discussion. That would be true even if the shaming’s relics were not preserved forever by Google, making any kind of rehabilitation impossible.

[jf-]

In other words, the honour system. People will just be good by themselves, despite all of the incentives to act badly. Good luck with that.

I find it interesting that in any real life situation people would want rules to protect people from one another, but online they will argue that they aren't needed.