It's still more work, because some people will get upset that they're not allowed to promote genocide. It still has edge cases (I've seen some hairy examples from Facebook moderation guidelines). It's also still more of a free speech issue than deleting spam is.

That doesn't mean such a ban would be bad, but it is complicated, and someone who doesn't like genocide might still not want it.

I think I sort of get it now.

Moderating spam is easier. Apparently it's hard to tell between "we should kill these people" and "these people are being killed" due to a language barrier sometimes, and it's hard to automate.

But wow. You all think "let's kill these people" somehow has more value than "buy my shit/here is a malware link", nice. downboat away

The closest such edge cases I found were mixups between enticement and reportage about Syrian war crimes and Rohingya genocide. What edge cases have you seen?

I don't mean banning racism, but enticement for violent action.

It's not that hard to understand.

A lot of people on Hacker News gets extremely upset when some site or institution decides to censor genocide advocacy, racism, or anything at all.