you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]flugegeheimen 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If sites moderated and then lost their protections and were held liable for user content, then it would kill free speech by killing all of the user-generated content platforms.

Because the God doesn't allow to exist platforms where users can choose whatever content they are allowed to see without self-imposed moderators's "help" or something?

and letting the users to make the choice to find a better community that doesn't suppress content unfairly

I'd rather have a community that doesn't make censoring choices for me. It's not like it requires some rocket science, even saidit (with introducing of "block user" feature) could already be one if /u/magnora could afford to have a complete hands-off approach.

[–]Nanner 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

A site would turn to trash fast without some sort of moderation. Also, do you really think that the true intent is to protect you from censorship?

This will kill free speech by killing all of the platforms.

Magnora censored and banned that Nazi dude the other day. Saidit would fall too.

[–]theoracle 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Yes moderation is needed but why make it compulsory or only have one moderation option?

[–]Nanner 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Sure. Have more than one option, but let the people decide for themselves.

Do not let government pass laws and gain more control over sites.

They are not there to protect our rights or freedom of speech, but their own interests.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)