[varispeed]

What if the law said that operator of a platform cannot delete user content, as long as it does not break the law and shouldn't artificially limit its exposure? In the event that the platform runs out of space they should be allowed to charge people reasonable amount for the space.

[notafraudster]

I would not use any platform that doesn't delete viagra spam or work from home spam or any of the other things we recognize are awful (say, someone spamming pages of all-caps AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA or Ż̵̧̦͈͕̼̜̫̦̟͈͎̆̈͒̀͆̉a̶̩̺͊̔͑́͆̕ļ̴̨͇̲͈͓̥̝̠̜̘̠̹̫̀̋͛̄g̸̹͇̫̗̼̺̰͍̻̦̯̹͆̆̈́̂͜͜ǒ̶̧̪̹͖͖̮̻̹̻̮̦͐́̌̐̀͐̃̒̓̏͝ ̷̠̯̹̣͖͍̩̦̪́̀̾ͅt̵̼͈͉͖̯̫̪̟͔͛͌̐̿̎́͌̇ͅe̶̫͓̖̲͍̞̞͈̎̔̿͐x̴̛̠̺̮̼̏͒̀̒̎t̸̮̼͔͖̹͙̦͚͙̣̜̍͋̈́͌). I regard a platform that won't remove this stuff as bad, user-hostile, and not worth using. In fact, I would think pretty poorly of Hacker News if moderators didn't want to remove what I've already posted because frankly the above text is annoying and detracts from the site.

I think any law that requires that platforms allow the signal to noise ratio to go through shit via spam (and in your specific law, even sets a minimum price to be permitted to spam) would be a bad one.

If you allow platforms to remove posts based on content, as I think you should, then we're back to having a debate about which particular types of content should be protected by law, or else which particular types of content a platform ought remove (irrespective of whether they are compelled to or not). You might disagree with me about which types of content those would be, but supposing we are in this type of world, then it is possible that the process of adjudicating which types of content might be removed could ultimately arrive at an end-point where fraudulent health claims (not so far removed from viagra spam!) are one of those types of content.

Also, as relates Hacker News, it's hard to imagine a world where it is illegal for a site owner to remove content a user posted, but it is legal for peer users, using a voting algorithm, to do so (by virtue of downvoting posts until they are dead or hidden). Would this lead to, for instance, wanting to impose criminal sanction on sockpuppet accounts, since we feel using multiple accounts to downvote is tantamount to interference that would be illegal if done by a moderator? This strikes me as a bit much.

[tsimionescu]

Excellent points. Platforms obviously need to have some power of moderation for spam and off-topic remarks.

One idea for a type of system for adjudicating disputes would be something similar ot the jury system used in common law countries. When a conflict arises (some moderator deletes a post whose poster feels is within the rules), a set of users could be chosen randomly and asked to deliberate whether that is the case or not. This would be similar to a court proceeding, with the accuser and accused allowed to argue their case, but much less formal. Participation in such juries would just be a cost of using the platform. This would not apply to posts that are removed for legal reasons, where the regular legal system would have to be used instead.

Note that spam is generally already illegal, and advertising products with specific health claims that you do not have proof for is definitely illegal in many jurisdictions (fraud / false advertising).

I would also expect that any such moderation should only apply to broadcast messages. Direct, private communication between two or more people must not be moderated in any way (though users should be given certain tools to help them, such as optional spam filters, the ability to block specific people from sending them messages, etc).