[kypro]

> We can’t have no moderation. There are a million reasons from spam to hostile government bots etc.

Why not though? Why can't I choose how I moderate spam? If platforms like Twitter and Facebook want to protect users from spam content, why can't there be law requiring any moderation operate as a opt-in / opt-out system so long as the content is otherwise legal? If a platform doesn't want to do this that's fine and we can just treat them as a publisher.

I'm sure some people will complain that Twitter is biased in how they operate their spam filters, but for me this is fine so long as whatever they're doing to curate the content is entirely optional.

[schuyler2d]

First there's the legal set of things: doxxing, child porn, copyright violations, revenge porn, etc.

Then there are softer aspects: disinformation, threats, abusive language that are often easier to block than for the company or for society to 'climb back out of' or address post-facto.

Twitter and other platforms are built for viral marketing -- not all content should have the privilege of viral marketing. Then as a product, Twitter and others might want to think about the minimum experience level. What kind of demographics are going to be present over time, if every woman-identifying account, if they peek at the default-moderated content, see 1000s of abusive and hostile tweets directed at them?

[anigbrowl]

Why can't I choose how I moderate spam?

Well, you can run your own mailserver and likewise some sort of social stream. But it's not so much about what you can or can't do, as the much larger number of people who can't or don't want to run their own communications infrastructure but also don't want to be inundated with spam.

Consider the parallel of robocalls, ie phone spam. People regularly complain to their phone provider and/or the FTC about being deluged with unwanted calls, many of which are scams.

[devwastaken]

Platform/publisher isn't a thing, that's a made up talking point.

Even if it were a "publisher" they can still refuse to publish your content, they can remove the content, and can edit the content. Publishers are not forced to do business with you.

"Curating content" is their business. That's how social media operates. You and I don't get to tell them that they can't run their business simply because we don't agree with their politics. You have to prove a significant public harm that's not protected. They're not a monopoly, nor do they control the infrastructure for social media. Nor do they have power over preventing you from creating your own.

[shkkmo]

> Platform/publisher isn't a thing, that's a made up talking point.

It mirrors an offline legal distinction that has a huge impact on liability. A printer is not liable for what they print because they don't exert editorial control while a publisher is because they do.

There are specific legal protections for online platforms that allow they to exert some moderation without qualifying as a publisher for liability purposes.

Thus the platform/publisher distinction is extremely relecant when discussing exactly how much moderation (and especially curration) can happen before a platform should assume the legal liabilities of a publisher.

[devwastaken]

Publishers aren't special, they have 1st amendment rights that protect them as well. Publishers are not automatically liable for their published works. You have to prove a causal link between the publisher and something in the book itself. And then you have to prove a harm that goes beyond the limits of 1st amendment protections. There's conflicting precedence on it, courts disagree on the limits of 1st amendment and how it applies to publishers. More commonly, it's the author that is targeted, because they wrote the work, not the publisher.

[anigbrowl]

True, but if I'm a publisher my liability would arise from publishing false stories like 'shkkmo distributes ransomware' or incitement like 'push shkkmo into traffic.' On the other hand, if I am the editor/publisher of Dweeb Aficionado I am under no obligation to give you editorial space or sell you advertising, except (in US law) if you can show that I am systematically excluding advertising from a class of people like you which enjoys some sort of legal protection.

[shkkmo]

I fail to see the relevance of this. As a publisher exerting editorial control, you also assume some liability for your content as that editorial control is a form of speech.

Printers who exert no editorial control are not engaging in speech and are thus not liable for the content they print (same with the ink, paper and printing press manufacturers.)

[anigbrowl]

The first sentence in my comment above defines the scope and limits of my liability.

[yifanl]

Moderation still exists in your system, presumably as a default-on.

[dooglius]

Disks aren't free. You'd need to come up with something preventing a bad actor from using Twitter as a personal multi-exabyte storage service. Simple rate-limiting won't work due to Sybil attacks.

[duxup]

>Why can't I choose how I moderate spam?

The scale of work there would make that more than a full time job. I can't imagine very many if any people want to do that...