Moderating a private forum is a different matter, and there's thirty years of prior art for it. Mass communication apps like Twitter are more like the old phone company; the idea that telephones should have censorship would have been recognized as both monstrous and impossible.
-
-
But where things really get complicated is if A and B want to interact, and C doesn't want them to. This can get ugly, particularly if C forms a large gang and stomps around the marketplace demanding the right to examine and forbid all transactions.
-
In a liberal society, this is generally regarded as a failure. C gaining power is good for C, bad for A and B, and bad for the health of the commons, because A and B are less able to interact for mutual benefit (and may seek coercive power themselves).
-
In short, politicization and morality enforcement both damage the power of ordinary people to seek beneficial interactions. They also become cripplingly expensive as the size of the commons increases, and tend to degenerate into banditry.
-
Anyway, this is just a sketch. For further consideration, I'd start with JS Mill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.