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, maker at 🕯️humankind candles🕯️, seemore.tv/humankind, hosting /founders, /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.

It is an inevitable tension. I don't have a good answer, but I have a good example: metafilter. I've been a member of that community for 25+ years and it remains the highest quality signal-to-noise ratio per volume. Their secret? paid human moderators and a 5$ membership fee.