Discussion Content policy and censorship on an ideal social media platform

[AbusedInnocent]

As most of you know this site exists because the SS subreddit was banned due to not complying with Reddit's content policy, so if you were to create a social media platform what would you allow and what would you censor?

It seems obvious to me that every platform on the internet should be able to independently decide its own rules and content policy and how to moderate it, global regulation of the internet by the state will always be abused to censor political opponents and whistleblowers which causes more harm that good.

It's a good sign that this site is still up with domain name and hosting.

So what's the content policy of your ideal social media? Would you allow a pro-choice view of suicide, what about discussion of methods, scientific misinformation, would you even allow incitement of violence and hate speech?

Also wondering if anyone has information on whether censoring extremists on social media actually works or if it just drives them to their own forums where nobody can criticize them?

This is an open discussion so I want to hear your thoughts if you have anything to add.

 

[Deleted member 8119]

It seems obvious to me that every platform on the internet should be able to independently decide its own rules and content policy and how to moderate it

Not if it includes hate speech or egregious illegal material. The point of rights isn't to step on each other, but to co-exist to make non-barbaric societies.

On the other extreme there's also censorship of things that don't qualify as such. Freedom of speech may have limitations, but it's also a right.

 

[Pluto]

Extremist groups (though they are mainstream nowadays) weaponise both misinformation and victimhood. If censored, they play the victim. If uncensored, they gain power through propaganda. The concept is not new, either, having previously given us the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and, later, the Holcaust.

Even allowing mainstream suicide discussion will give rise to a subculture of serial killer trolls who push suffering people over the edge for fun.

In short, it's a near-impossible task for as long as people are assholes.

 

[AbusedInnocent]

Not if it includes hate speech or egregious illegal material. The point of rights isn't to step on each other, but to co-exist to make non-barbaric societies.

On the other extreme there's also censorship of things that don't qualify as such. Freedom of speech may have limitations, but it's also a right.

If the state gains complete control over domain registrars this forum would be taken down, I'm not saying sharing illegal material should be legal, I'm only saying the state shouldn't have the power to stop it from being shared in the first place, they can track down cybercriminals all they want but they shouldn't regulate the whole internet.

You can't make Tor illegal just because it can be used to buy drugs, you can't make torrenting illegal just because it can be used for piracy, you can't make encryption illegal just because it can be used to encrypt illegal media.

 

[Deleted member 8119]

If censored, they play the victim.

Personally I think this alternative is better. A group of butthurt but powerless extremists > rampant hate speech. When you consider all rights imply obligations to not abuse them, you can have the best of both worlds.

If mainstream suicide discussion gave raise to what you said, it's them who you have to censor, not the vast majority of innocent people. Would you ban charities because a minority would use them to scam others?

It'd also reduce violent methods that involve others. IMO the result is clearly better.

If the state gains complete control over domain registrars this forum would be taken down, I'm not saying sharing illegal material should be legal, I'm only saying the state shouldn't have the power to stop it from being shared in the first place, they can track down cybercriminals all they want but they shouldn't regulate the whole internet.

When I said egregious material I was thinking on clearly harmful things like sexual abuse platforms and the likes. What you're describing also sounds like rights violation anyway.