[Pyramus]

No, I'm trying to understand what OP's position is?

> There are a lot of things I think should exist but don’t want there to be laws enforcing that fact.

Can you give some examples? I can't think of a single social network that is not moderated, even 4Chan is to some extent. Maybe on the darknet? But even then moderation exists I assume.

So it seems clear to me that there should be some minimum standard in moderation, which should be enforceable.

It's kind of ironic that we discuss this on a heavily moderated platform, which is both moderated by a centralised authority as well as the users themselves.

[jiofj]

Read the original quote from the article. It does not say that the state should say that there should be some moderation, it says that the state should say how platforms are moderated. "how closely the state should be involved in the moderation practices of private platforms"

Also, again and again: the fact that all platforms you know are moderated does not mean that this should happen by law.

[jdenning]

When a site sets their own standards of moderation, users have a choice to use or not use the site based on those standards. When the state sets the standard, then users are not able to choose the site that has the appropriate amount/type of moderation.

Clearly, there are people who want to use sites with minimal moderation, eg 4chan.

I don’t want to use 4chan myself, because of its lack of moderation, but why should I care if others do want to use 4chan?

I think OP’s point is pretty clear - just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

[keiferski]

I don’t understand what is so complicated about this. The legal system is not the solution to every problem. Moderation is not the same as passing laws.