= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on New censorship: against hypothetical violence against identifiable people - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (457)
I'm not sure what's obvious for you. In an enviroment without censorship you don't endorse a post by not censoring the post. If you however start censoring you do endorse a post by letting it stand.
Your legal and PR obligations for those posts that LessWrong hosts get bigger if you make editorial censorship decisions.
Is there any way out of this dilemma? For example having a policy where moderator flips a coin for each offending article or comment, and head = delete, tails = keep.
:D
While I don't know about the legality, practically what this does is add noise to the moderation signal. Posts that remain are still more likely to be ones that the moderator approves of, but might not be.
This is actually very similar to the current system, with the randomness of coin flipping substituted for the semi-randomness of what the moderator happens to see.
AIUI this is legally true: CDA section 230, mere hosting versus moderation.