That's the whole point. Permabanning on the first offense ignores the reality that these large-scale moderation systems (automated or human) tend to lack nuance and context-awareness, leading to false positives. A system of escalating warnings adds slack to protect good-faith users from those sorts of moderation failures.

So if someone shares CP on discord you think they should be given a warning and not permabanned? The justice system isn't going to give them any slack so why should a private entity? Where do you draw the line? I asked in my initial comment, "What's egregious to you". No one will answer that...

> So if someone shares CP on discord you think they should be given a warning and not permabanned?

"Think of the children" is consistently used as an escape hatch to avoid actually doing due diligence in enforcement and moderation. You aren't protecting anyone by lazily granting root to content moderation / surveillance / whatever system is under discussion. You're just making those systems worse.

Here's a better example.

Say I post a picture of my young child running around in a diaper to a family/close friends discord channel.

It gets flagged as CP because algorithms lack nuance.

Should I be permabanned for this?

Are we just not allowed to share photos of children online at all unless they are clothed head to toe? Maybe that's our current cultural norm, but that seems like an excessive measure for a society where most people aren't child predators.

You say "CP" like it's a clearly evil category, but there's people out there that insist that fanfic about characters in a kid's show kissing is in that category. So, no, I don't really trust moderators to permaban that.

That said, yeah, actual CP should still be a permaban. We all agree on that. But treating it as a cut-and-dried example illustrates exactly what hnaccount141 was saying when they said "these large-scale moderation systems (automated or human) tend to lack nuance and context-awareness, leading to false positives"