[quantumBerry]

The internet is not moderated in any useful sense for content. Drug markets like white house market, and before that silk road have perpetuated for years. Tor and other darknet websites host content that is nearly universally disdained by governments and even most individuals, which I hesitate to even name here what that heinous content is (you and I both know some examples).

> We assume NASA's site has NASA-posted content. We assume Apple's site has Apple-posted content.

Trust in identity is not the same thing as useful moderation of content. That's useful moderation of identity.

>Sites with different standards for what they'd publish have been around for decades (for gore, for porn, etc) but many of these still exist in a traditional curated-by-someone fashion, or are more open to UGC but still have some level of moderation.

Those sites _choose_ to moderate their content, that doesn't exclude others that don't.

[jjulius]

>The internet is not moderated in any useful sense for content. Drug markets like white house market, and before that silk road...

You mean the Silk Road that the US government "moderated" out of existence, along with other Tor marketplaces over the years? The same ones that suggest White House Market's existence is also likely to be limited?

[quantumBerry]

I suppose in the sense that Gabby Pettito was moderated off the internet, Ross Ulbricht was moderated off of the internet and into a cage permanently for the heinous crime of facilitating voluntarily peaceful trade. Tor marketplaces were definitely not gone for years, the same content just moved under new banners. You can literally find the same content and more on WHM today as you did under Ulbricht's banner before he was kidnapped by government thugs.

[jjulius]

>I suppose in the sense that Gabby Pettito was moderated off the internet, Ross Ulbricht was moderated off of the internet and into a cage permanently for the heinous crime of facilitating voluntarily peaceful trade.

Oh hello, strawman.

>Tor marketplaces were definitely not gone for years, the same content just moved under new banners. You can literally find the same content and more on WHM today as you did under Ulbricht's banner before he was kidnapped by government thugs.

And the only reason that happens is by virtue of Tor making it difficult to track the source of those sites and their operators. That doesn't mean that "moderators" (governments, etc.) aren't putting forth their best efforts to track them down and shut them down. It is nearly inevitable that WHM will see a similar fate to Silk Road, AlphaBay, DarkMarket, etc.. They're being shut down as quickly as they can be.

[quantumBerry]

>Oh hello, strawman.

Glad to know you finally admit that being kidnapped by a 3rd party is not really what most of us think as "moderation", and thus you have made a straw man. Although in the strict sense I guess it is true that moderation could merely mean some 3rd party entity came along and violently kept me away from communicating. If you don't like me posting cat pictures on reddit, you could crack my skull or lock me in a cage and steal my PC and you would have "moderated" me but I wouldn't call that reddit moderation.

[jjulius]

... wow. Talk about going from 0-100 entirely too fast.

I was talking specifically about sites such as Silk Road and others being taken offline (which is exactly what you were talking about, too), not once did I mention his arrest nor did I allude to it. Glancing at your username, I seem to recall previous comments from you in threads about drug use being legalized. On the broad topic of drug legalization - again - you and I agree, but you would do well to prevent your biases from creeping in and causing you to misunderstand posts and/or lash out at others.

[quantumBerry]

I apologize, maybe you are not familiar with the details of the silk road. Ross Ulbricht was the administrator and creator of the silk road, allegedly. It's quite probable that without his arrest, it would have persisted even if on newly acquired hardware. I would argue his arrest was integral in these violent thugs "moderating" silk road away like the mob "moderates" away their competition.

Instead, after his arrest the content ended up on new platforms rather than the Silk Road platform.

> biases from creeping in and causing you to misunderstand posts and/or lash out at others.

Yes my bias is in complete, unrestricted free speech. Every single piece of content, regardless of how damaging or vulgar anyone thinks it is and regardless of if it portrays even the worst of crimes. I admit I am colored by that bias.

> lash out at others.

What are you talking about? You feel attacked because your poorly constructed argument was laid open. Your case is pretty clear. Even if the system of the internet has no useful filter of content (whether that is true or not), if a third party such as DEA comes along and decides to seize equipment and throw the operator in jail, you consider that content moderation. And I'm willing to admit from a practical perspective, that could be considered a form of moderation by a violent third party.

---------------

Edit due to waiting on timeout to reply below:

His arrest is hand and hand with the shutdown. It was integral. You can't say you weren't mentioning Ulbricht's arrest when that arrest WAS, in part, the takedown of Silk Road. The very fact that you said you weren't speaking of the arrest lead me to say you "may not be familiar" (note the uncertain words, that your bias clouds you from understanding did not speak in certainties.)

>s, and then angrily respond to them as such.

I think you're projecting. If there's any anger, it must be yours.

>Yeah, again, you're injecting your own biases as you create assumptions about my comments

Your comment appeared to be a rebuttal to my statement that "The internet itself is unmoderated in any useful sense for conten." If it wasn't actually a rebuttal but actually an agreement, I apologize for misunderstanding you were actually supporting that argument.

>See how I used "moderated" in quotes in my very first response? That suggests that I'm using the term rather loosely.

>If something's illegal - even if you and I think it shouldn't be - then it's typically going to be removed at some point, even if it takes a while because something like Tor makes it difficult. And in that sense, yes, the internet is "moderated" for that content. That's all I've said/argued, and I truly don't understand how that is so difficult for you to grasp.

The illegal content has only progressively proliferated since the advent of the internet, and we've yet to see an effective mechanism to moderate the content of the internet as a whole. Virtually every category of content has not only not been removed but increased.

>That's all I've said/argued, and I truly don't understand how that is so difficult for you to grasp.

Yes and I'm arguing that this is incorrect, it hasn't been moderated. At best it has passed from platform from platform but no effective mechanism has managed to censor the internet as a whole.

Sometimes I wonder with all this speak of anger, misinterpretations, and clouded judgement is just you repeating to me what your own psychologist told you.

[nicbou]

> the heinous crime of facilitating voluntarily peaceful trade

Well that, money laundering, hacking, and contracting someone to kill six people.