|
|
|
|
|
|
by sieabahlpark
2505 days ago
|
|
|
I haven't used 8chan but I doubt 100% of their content is hateful content. I also doubt most of their users are hateful... If you penalize and normalize website censorship because of bad actors then what's to stop a big company from barraging a smaller site with malicious users to get it taken down thus removing competition? It's a dangerous game to play if anything. You can only do so much with the money you have. I know I couldn't stop people from commenting hate on my websites, I don't have the resources or people to deal with that. Should I be taken down for something I can't control? Do I have to have a certain ratio of content to get by? How long is the window to fix bad content? |
|
|
The smaller site will have to do what Voat is currently doing and restrict registrations and access for a while. Ultimately the fact that big players can shove smaller players off line is weakness of IPv4 address exhaustion and designing platforms on a strict centralized client-server model, not a model of suppressing violence-inducing speech.
> I don't have the resources or people to deal with that. Should I be taken down for something I can't control?
Yes, because you can put a banner on your page "Hey users, we can only support X users for required moderation of violent content with our current resources. Will you give us more money to support X+Y users?"