Counterpoint:

  while True:
    requests.post(api_url, json={"username": "@jrvarela56", "message": "hello"})

If this was allowed to run without moderation, targeting your account on some social network, it would effectively jam you from receiving any other messages on that network.

Moderation is noise reduction, undesirable content (junk mail, male junk, threats, even just uninteresting content) is noise, the stuff you want is signal, usability requires a good signal to noise ratio. Speech can be either signal or noise.

So if I posted your home address, social security number, bank account and routing numbers, your work address, pictures of you, your spouse, your kids, the schools they go to, your license plate numbers, pictures of your car and its real time location that moderators can't take that down if they believe in free speech?

Interesting world we live in then.

Most people would be OK with suppressing CSAM. At least I hope most people are.

Sure, you’re not wrong, I am very okay with not seeing CSAM, but your argument doesn’t hold water. Every communication is speech, and moderating it by definition limits it. What limits are acceptable is the question, and I think zero human beings truly believe the answer is 100% or 0%. I am a free speech maximalist, but I also used to work at a place that had a huge 8ft wide sombrero you’d wear when working with content moderation teams to prevent unneeded trauma to coworkers.

Anyone who pretends there is a totally morally clean way to solve this issue is naive or a liar.

> I am very okay with not seeing CSAM, but your argument doesn’t hold water.

By this you mean that its very easy to define a clear set of rules for moderation?

In the case of CSAM, yes. In the case of other material? No. Again, I side heavily on the side of freedom of speech, but the argument that limiting speech and limiting some specific kinds of widely condemned speech are orthogonal does not stand up to the most basic scrutiny.

I don't think it's possible to have a clear set of rules that cannot be interpreted maliciously.

Naive? Or a liar?