The legal system is extremely elaborate, requires multiple people to agree about proof of wrongdoing and offers many avenues for defense and appeal.

YouTube by comparison is essentially arbitrary.

Checks and balances.

It should always kept as small as humanly possible. Same with other government structures, too.

Who do these "judges" think they are, with their absurd, arbitrary, oppressive fantasies that "murder" exists and is "illegal"?

If only our judges would get with the program and acknowledge facts don't exist, and there's no such thing as wrong or right, true of false :)

So, people who are tasked with determining truths like whether someone committed murder is okay, but it’s not okay to determine whether an online advertisement about a medical treatment is medically accurate?

I'm so glad we're discussing it on HN, so I can use better analogies: it's feature creep. Imagine a product wich was originally elegant and perfomant, almost in a unix way - but then dozens of product managers, each with best of intentions, started adding features to it. Oh, and the product itself was something akin to operating system kernel in terms of security - having monopoly on violence and able to literally kill people - but all those product managers wouldn't hear about moving all these shiny new features into userland, because of perfomance and ease of development.

That's what a typical modern government is.