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.

I don’t think this is possible. Even if you empower users with the most comprehensive anti-harassment tools, there’s still the matter of keeping them on rails. That is, have strong defaults while also letting them know periodically to check their settings.

Normies aren’t delving into settings though…we are.