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.

spent a bunch of time thinking about this at lbry. our best answer is that moderation should happen in layers and be opt-in.

at the protocol layer, its least moderated. that's either no moderation at all, or maybe rare and low-resolution decisions (eg slashing validators, kicking out nodes, etc)

fractalist. tech lead at cabin.city. founder of LBRY.com, Odysee.com, vibe.camp, @farcon, grin.io

this also handles the case of a single protocol serving multiple countries with differing laws and standards (eg some things the US considers CP are totally fine in Japan)

btw this seems to be the approach that @dwr.eth is taking too. fc is open but wc will ban you if you post porn

at higher levels (think hubs or maybe apps), you have ppl (and companies) who follow the firehose and publish their moderation activity. then your app or hub subscribes to it and that changes what you see as a user

any popular app will come with a default list of subbed moderators, but also you can customize