I’ve been reading “The age of surveillance capitalism” and the author posits that once social networks start censoring users, they become responsible for the moderation of the platform 

Today tech CEOs testified at Congress and it seems that majority of the senators want *higher* moderation on these platforms

they/them, candlemaker at 🕯️humankind 🕯️, seemore.tv/humankind, hosting /samantha, /humankind

My q to the philosophy channel is how do you build an uncensored social platform at scale when there is harm such as CP, sextortion, scams, bots etc. 

In this context harm is subjective. I don’t mean harm = illegal. CP is illegal, sending 1000 $DEGEN and getting 10k back is a scam but not illegal. They are both bad.

Optionality. 

Put another way: freedom to “vote” with one’s feet and move on to another node without sacrificing your data / social ties.

Permissionlessness at the protocol level is the solution.

Principal at Cobalt Ventures. Write @ TheItinerant.io ; BenErsing.com Host: /venturecapital /finance

Unfortunately Zuck can't make that argument to Congress, so ultimately it will be market forces that drive change.

maker at humankind candles, they/them, art student, seemore.tv/humankind

censor at the client all you want. just let the protocol be permissionless, both in writing and reading (many clients). 

e.g. email: google can kick me off gmail but no one can kick me off of SMTP (this is actually a bad example because spam prevention wars centralized email too)

I think you will find this thread interesting between me and @kia.eth 😊

I think you will find this thread interesting between me and @kia.eth 😊

https://warpcast.com/kia.eth/0x11354232