A brief argument that “moderation” is distinct from censorship mainly when it’s optional.
I read this as a corollary to Scott’s Archipelago and Atomic Communitarianism. It certainly raises similar issues—especially the existence of exit rights. Currently, even heavily free-speech platforms maintain the option of deleting content. This can be legal or practical. But doing so is incompatible with an “exit” right to opt back in to the deleted material.
Scott also suggests that if moderation becomes “too cheap to meter,” it’s likely to prevent the conflation with censorship. I’m not sure I see it. Assuming he means something like free, accurate AI tagging/filtering, how does that remove the incentive to call [objectionable thing X] worthy of proper censorship? I suppose it reduces the excuse of “X might offend people,” requiring more legible harms.
As a side note, I’m curious if anyone else browses the moderation log periodically. Perhaps I’m engaging with outrage fuel. But it also seems like an example of unchecking (some of) the moderation filters to keep calibrated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Presumably posts, not people would be tagged. And also presumably, more than if such posts would be removed outright and the person posting them banned.
That people would also sometimes dispute an application of such a tag to their post, is to be expected, but it still leads to a world with freer speech.
To oppose such a plan is to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Why? If one of your objectives is to curtail harassment and enable people to self-segregate away from content they don't want to see, that is going to require not only identifying offensive posts but the people who make them as well.
Disputes over social media moderation have very little to do with free speech and a great deal more to do with people with unpopular views/behavior demanding that others not be allowed to dissociate from them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link