I don’t know about ten years ago, twenty maybe. But the internet of today is not the internet of then.

Back then someone could have created an offensive blog and it wouldn’t have been taken down. But people would have to link to it, seek it out. Now we have social media sites algorithmically pushing content in our faces, IMO it’s only fair that they’re asked to consider what they’re pushing when they do it.

It seems to me that suggests that maybe we should evaluate a model where we pull, and share content ourselves.

The issue I've seen is that tends to make it hard to sneak ads into the feed without it being really obvious to everyone what is being done.

I think we're just more mindful of moderation due to the size of sites now.

It has always existed.

Adding "offensive" to your sentence is a bit disingenuous.

? Why?

Without getting into the debate at all, the main focus of recent moderation attempts have been to target "abuse"/"hate speech", however you want to define that.

Adding "offensive" widens the scope enormously and unfairly and suddenly we're into the realms of restricting the freedom of speech for normal everyday situations.

This is extremely fuzzy line and pretty much nobody agrees where offense stops and hate starts. It's dishonest to try to distinguish a line between the two because it will inevitably move over time at the whims of the moderators.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the line is as extremely fuzzy as you say, otherwise there'd be relative anarchy.

There are some generally accepted "yes" and "no's", and then, yes, there's a few things at the edge that might give me cause to think twice.

If defining that line is "extremely fuzzy" to you, then you're already way too far down the rabbit hole (in my opinion) and I won't be following you down there.