[albntomat0]

I agree with your point, but am personally skeptical of anything more than what is literally illegal speech, with controls for individuals to personally filter more if they so choose. There are too many ways for Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc to fail. The policies that shape speech restrictions on the primary means of communication for many people should come through the appropriate political processes, as problematic as those can often be, not SV boardrooms.

[the_snooze]

By that standard, doxxing is fair game. It's not technically illegal in most cases, and the victim, their loved ones, and employers are free try their best to personally filter out the abuse.

[albntomat0]

Thanks for pointing it out. That was not a abuse case I considered.

It's straightforward to create a list of restrictions based on types of information to prevent doxxing, at least from my understanding. Avoiding postings of addresses, employers, etc without the consent of the original person can be made an unambiguous rule. I don't believe such a restriction could be used as a weapon to silence legitimate speech.

My ultimate concern however, is the poor application of harder to define restrictions like "glorifying violence" being used maliciously. I could see pressure from various people that recent protest organizing would fall under the same category (not that I agree with such assertion). As Twitter has decided to filter some speech, bad actors are going to try to use that filtering to get opposing speech filtered.

Additionally, that's all assuming Twitter, Facebook, etc are acting in good faith. There are numerous ways the good intentions here result in dystopian outcomes.

[the_snooze]

I'm not sure it's so straightforward. Under the anti-doxxing restrictions you laid out, journalists could have been muzzled for identifying the unmarked law enforcement officers in DC a few weeks ago [1].

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-dc-protests-unidenti...

[albntomat0]

Maybe different categories for government employees in their public roles?

I think this highlights my original concern even more. While an ideal world would have some board at Twitter able to make these decisions in an ideal way, the implementation you desire requires subjective judgments. Based on the recent stories on HN about difficulties with app store filtering that should have an objective standard, I am still highly concerned about giving the power to make subjective speech filtering decisions to SV social media companies.

[Taek]

It's hard to filter out things like being swatted, or having stalkers move to your neighborhood, or having your name known to all of your psychiatric patients.

[cma]

All those sites would be nothing but commercial spam if they couldn't block it and charge companies to post it within a limited allotment.

Would you essentially let users choose to filter it out, but show them a garbage homepage before they do, but then also let companies pay to bypass the filter (advertisements), but block politicians from paying to bypass the filter for their advertisements?