>Why? The whole point of the idea is that people don't get banned.
The whole point of whose idea? I'm discussing the subject of moderation, as in, not being moderated or banned for content.
Not the subject of not being banned for anything, ever. That is, spam, bots, personal threats, cp, could always be banned, and I'd be fine with it.
>is just returning to the state today with people completely disagreeing about what "sufficiently bad users" means.
The disagreement occurs because this is based on beliefs and ideas. But this idea or that idea, based on ideology, partisanship, etc....
If instead the banning was solely based on the type of content (e.g. no spam, threats, cp, automated mass posting) then there's infinitely less room for disagreement. Something either is spam or is not. Either is a threat or not. CP or not, and most people can agree on that.
Even if not everybody agrees on whether X is spam ("I think it's good, because it informs us about a product we didn't know about"), it's much much less than people disagreeing on what's a bad take on politics, or "disinformation", or such, and much freer speech.
>The "public forums" (twitter, youtube, facebook) are all ad supported. Without advertisers those products simply die.
> Not the subject of not being banned for anything, ever. That is, spam, bots, personal threats, cp, could always be banned, and I'd be fine with it.
When the things you think are banworthy get banned then you are fine with it, yes. Upthread you listed slurs as one of these reasons. A large number of people complaining about "censorship" do not think that using slurs or even calling people slurs is banworthy. So you'll run into that problem.
We already see people complaining about bans "based on the type of content." The idea that somehow other kinds of moderation are the problem and that if we only stop that kind then everybody will be happy is simply not based in fact.
>When the things you think are banworthy get banned then you are fine with it, yes
You make it sound like I'd just said something is "fine" because it's to my taste - no matter how bad it might be otherwise. I think the snark is a little misplaced, though, as one could say exactly the same if they proposed an (objectively) good or perfect or best-compromise solution.
So what matters is whether it's actually that: a good solution. Not whether it's to the taste of the person proposing it (which, any solution would always be). So at best the snark above is based on a truism/tautology.
>A large number of people complaining about "censorship" do not think that using slurs or even calling people slurs is banworthy. So you'll run into that problem.
Here's the thing: I'm not sure it's that big of a number of people. I'm also pretty sure "a number of people" also think spam, cp, violent threats are not banworthy, but I don't think it's "a large number" either.
Which is why I think banning slurs, spam, and other such things is OK, and doesn't have to do with freedom of speech - you can still express the same ideas, even the most unpopular and controversial ones, without slurs, spam, cp, and so on.
>We already see people complaining about bans "based on the type of content."
Some people will complain about anything and everything - I'm sure that some are even against the invention of fire or in favor of farting in elevators. Satisfying everyone can't ever be the measure of a good proposal.
The best solution is about a good compromise that doesn't hurt the core issue of free speech, and not only doesn't stiffle, but even helps discussion (e.g. you can't have free speech if you get death threats for it, as people will be afraid to speak - so banning "violent threats" content makes sense. Similarly, you can't have free speech if the forum is filled with advertising spam and penis enlargement and "get rich quick ads". So banning spam will help the discussion, not stiffle it).
The whole point of whose idea? I'm discussing the subject of moderation, as in, not being moderated or banned for content.
Not the subject of not being banned for anything, ever. That is, spam, bots, personal threats, cp, could always be banned, and I'd be fine with it.
>is just returning to the state today with people completely disagreeing about what "sufficiently bad users" means.
The disagreement occurs because this is based on beliefs and ideas. But this idea or that idea, based on ideology, partisanship, etc....
If instead the banning was solely based on the type of content (e.g. no spam, threats, cp, automated mass posting) then there's infinitely less room for disagreement. Something either is spam or is not. Either is a threat or not. CP or not, and most people can agree on that.
Even if not everybody agrees on whether X is spam ("I think it's good, because it informs us about a product we didn't know about"), it's much much less than people disagreeing on what's a bad take on politics, or "disinformation", or such, and much freer speech.
>The "public forums" (twitter, youtube, facebook) are all ad supported. Without advertisers those products simply die.
That's a bonus!