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 -
The problem doesn't really change either way, a platform can still insist that you go listen elsewhere. Just as they argue you don't have the unlimited right to speak anywhere, they'd argue that you don't have the unlimited right to hear whatever you want wherever you want if it would require someone else to be in listening distance.
The argument against censorship should emphasize that people can and have been hilariously wrong in the past, and there's no proof we're any better at understanding what's true or not, so we should be willing to listen to ideas that go against what we say.
More options
Context Copy link