[JumpCrisscross]

> That the problem is big and requires care doesn't strike me as a substantive objection to the effort of addressing it using the tools that we have (legislation, however imperfect)

Again, not disagreeing. Just saying the solution as presented is obviously flawed. And I haven't seen a solution whose proponents don't similarly throw their hands up with generalities the moment it's poked.

[hackinthebochs]

"Throw my hands up" doesn't seem like a fair characterization. I wasn't offering legislation, I was offering a framework within which the details can be fleshed out that perhaps would lead to practical legislation (I mean, this is an HN comment after all, there's only so much you can reasonably expect). You seemed to disagree with the effort entirely, but your critique merely points to difficulties inherent in legislating nebulous phenomena. I certainly don't disagree, but I fail to see why that should short-circuit the effort. If that wasn't your intention, then perhaps we don't disagree much at all.

[JumpCrisscross]

Fair enough.

> was offering a framework within which the details can be fleshed out

So the framework is revoking § 230 for large websites that moderate user content. Except providing a safe harbor for removing illegal stuff. Also off topic. Presumably also spam.

What does that actually do except buy every lawyer a ranch? We haven’t actually drawn the line between censorship and moderation. And I’m arguing we can’t; there isn’t one. Where we draw the line we do so by identity; who is speaking or doing the moderating/censorship.

The act of censorship or moderation is the expression of an opinion. I haven’t seen a way to remove one without the other; that’s the error drawing up a list of examples doesn’t solve. There is always another example, and at that point, we aren’t drawing a line anymore, we’re back to putting content in a good and bad bin, just a little more centralised.

[hackinthebochs]

>What does that actually do except buy every lawyer a ranch? We haven’t actually drawn the line between censorship and moderation. And I’m arguing we can’t; there isn’t one. Where we draw the line we do so by identity; who is speaking or doing the moderating/censorship.

In broad strokes the line is simple: moderation is ensuring content stays on topic, censorship is limiting the topic. In practice it gets thorny. But we don't need to solve the concept in its full generality. This would only apply to sites that reach the size such that "public square" is a reasonable description of their social relevance.

The problem is these sites want to be the destination for communication, while also shaping that communication according to some narrow political aims. Also throw in maximizing engagement. These constraints should be seen as inherently contradictory. If you want to be the de facto public square, you should not be limiting topics among interested parties. I'll leave the specific verbiage to the lawyers, but the target is clear enough: people interested in engaging on some topic (barring illegality) should not be prevented by the site in engaging on that topic. I see nothing inherently contradictory or impossible about any of this.

[hellojesus]

> I see nothing inherently contradictory or impossible about any of this.

Maybe neither contradictory nor impossible, but I would still argue it's bad policy to slap a label on a private company stating they're a de facto public square, when in reality all they've done is the best job at attracting users.