Would you categorically state that if the service can't do it, the service should continue in its present form?
Walls are some of the oldest inventions of civilization, and YouTube currently lacks /any/ walls. I'm arguing for some walls in the right places, you're arguing for no walls whatsoever. We have a difference of opinion, it's fine.
I'm not trying to be prickly here, but I've thought quite a lot about freedoms of speech, and I believe for it to concisely work, it cannot unto itself guarantee an audience, as that would still be mandating opinion, only in the other direction. It can provide legal protections, but not protections from social ramifications, as again, this would be mandating opinion one way or the other. We can live in a free society without that freedom meaning I can help myself to my neighbor's wife. THAT is nuance.
No, but you're saying that if we can't limit people from posting bad things then we should remove or change the ability to post. Take that same idea into real life. It's impossible to stop people from saying and doing things without excessively infringing on their freedoms and as a result people say and do bad things. You're arguing that we should excessively infringe on their freedoms to prevent that from happening. This leads me to believe that you are against freedom of expression and speech.
>There is no rationality to be found in an absolute "save the children at all costs" position, much as there is none in "freedom of speech at all costs".
But you didn't express nuance. You categorically said that if a service can't do it, then the service needs to change. If you want to paint a picture of nuance, then express nuance.
And I would argue that freedom of speech is a necessity for a free society, meaning that it is almost "at all costs". I've seen what the Soviet era did with people. I don't want to live in such a society.