[ethanbond]

In general I’d like stronger speech protections but I find your approach to be hysterical and counterproductive. For example, I don’t think it’s right to say the government cannot possibly request content moderation action, nor do I think it’s right to say that a private company can’t voluntarily cooperate with such a request.

So your whole hysterical “private companies can’t stand up to this!” is actually adding to the problem by giving the impression they cannot. In reality, they can, they should, and they very often do.

[coldtea]

>For example, I don’t think it’s right to say the government cannot possibly request content moderation action, nor do I think it’s right to say that a private company can’t voluntarily cooperate with such a request.

So much for "stronger free speech protections".

If someone who says they agree with free speech says talking against this is "hysterical", I'd like to see what those against free speech say.

[ethanbond]

So in your ideal model of the world, it would be forbidden for anyone working for the government to click a “report child pornography” button on Twitter et al?

Or would it just be forbidden for Twitter to look at that report and then remove the content?

[nec4b]

If your argument is think of the kids, you stooped very low.

[ethanbond]

If your argument relies on precluding the realistic types of cases that would be affected by it, you’re not thinking about solving real problems.