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 -
Isn't it basically slashdot moderation? Nothing that doesn't break the law goes away, the really unpopular stuff is just in the -1 hidden unless you go looking for Natalie Portman's petrified grits proto memes and GNAA/WIPO trolling trough. If you want to see the best of the hiveminf browse at 5, if you want to see the iconoclasts, browse at 0.
They seem to have figured out a way to do this two decades ago, surely we can do it for less cost with machine learning today. I feel like that old joke about free software fans living in yurts trying to give away tanks that get 90 mpg.
More options
Context Copy link