Yes. If you create an open space, you are not allowed to moderate free speech.
You are allowed to moderare harmful illegal content, you are allowed to moderate spam, and other service breaking content. But kicking someone off because you dont like what they say is censorship.
Are you saying it is not censorship somehow?
Note, im perfectly fine with you moderating a private forum, e.g. behind a login wall.
But if you use the term "public" for visibility there is probably something wrong with censoring speech.
And yes, if you want to curate you are a publisher and are liable for the content.
If the laws around what liable means are a problem for the tech world maybe they need cleaning up a bit but i think some form of liability should be placed there anyway.
You dont get to shape modern discourse and then get to get off scotfree when everything goes pearshaped.
If your stance is that people should need to log in to see content in order to have moderation, that's fine.
Moderation is absolutely censorship, and I should have every right to censor on a physical or digital platform that I own. If people behave in a manner I don't like in my physical business or on my private property, then I should have the right to remove them. If people behave in a way I don't like on my digital asset, I should have the right to remove them. Their use of my asset is predicated on my consent baring any other contractual details. If they don't like it, they are free to set up their own private enterprises with their own rules of conduct. Saying I am somehow liable for the content that remains is not reasonable. I shouldn't be liable for someone talking shit in my physical business, for a friend saying inflammatory things while in my private residence, for inflammatory conduct on a forum, or any other speech that is not my own unless I myself explicitly endorse that speech (with the exception of illegality that I know about). Me booting off person X while leaving person Y doesn't mean I inherently endorse person Y or agree with them.
I agree with that stance. And this is where i think the laws might need changing to protect those who are merely providing a private space but do still have to deal with reality.
I think potentially we need a third classification to indemnify private spaces of liability.
I still believe that public spaces should remain open, nuetral and unmoderated.
The world is a scary place, the laws dont line up between countries and weird scary shit will be posted online.
Im ok with this. Im ok with the internet being a place to explore our human psychy in its entirety.
I dont want it to be a nanny stated corporate friendly chopshop for ideas.
You are allowed to moderare harmful illegal content, you are allowed to moderate spam, and other service breaking content. But kicking someone off because you dont like what they say is censorship.
Are you saying it is not censorship somehow?
Note, im perfectly fine with you moderating a private forum, e.g. behind a login wall.
But if you use the term "public" for visibility there is probably something wrong with censoring speech.
And yes, if you want to curate you are a publisher and are liable for the content.
If the laws around what liable means are a problem for the tech world maybe they need cleaning up a bit but i think some form of liability should be placed there anyway.
You dont get to shape modern discourse and then get to get off scotfree when everything goes pearshaped.