Okay, but you're saying this on a platform where the moderator (dang) follows intentionally vague and subjective guidelines, presumably because you like the environment more here than some unmoderated howling void elsewhere on the Internet.
The quality of the platform lives or dies on the quality of these decisions. If dang's choices are too bad, this site will die.
The situation is somewhat different between a niche community and a borderline monopoly. But it's also true that facebook's success depends on navigating it well. At the end of the day we can choose to use it or not.
To the extent that people feel forced to use a platform that's a reason to further bias away from suppressing free expression, even if the result is a somewhat less good platform.
You're still making subjective judgements wherever you draw the line. I don't know how a platform could avoid making subjective judgements at all and still produce an environment people want to be in.
Good point, and thanks. I have to admit I don't have a good answer to this. Maybe what dang needs to assess can be better defined or qualified? Like we can't define porn but we know it when we see it? On the other hand, assessing something is offensive or is hate speech is so subjective that people simply weaponize them, intentionally or unintentionally.
