What if the owner has a different opinion than you of what is offending and what is not?
They get to remove sites you think are good and keep sites you think are bad.
In the end, the only fair and objective way to filter content is the rule of law, as it applies to everyone equally. Every subjective decision will always offend some people.
I personally think the linked page "the long game" [1] found in this page is more interesting on this topic than the original link.
> What if the owner has a different opinion than you of what is offending and what is not? They get to remove sites you think are good and keep sites you think are bad.
Yup.
> In the end, the only fair and objective way to filter content is the rule of law, as it applies to everyone equally
While it is ideal for the rule of law to be fair and apply to everyone equally, it never actually achieves that idea. The only fair way to govern what content people are compelled to relay is to let people choose what content to relay.
> Every subjective decision will always offend some people.
All decisions, including the decisions to incorporate particular standards are subjective.
> While it is ideal for the rule of law to be fair and apply to everyone equally, it never actually achieves that idea. The only fair way to govern what content people are compelled to relay is to let people choose what content to relay.
There is an alternative that is equally fair: don't let people choose what content to relay.
This also has the benefit of weakening the impact of relayers on the conversation.
In the end, the only fair and objective way to filter content is the rule of law, as it applies to everyone equally. Every subjective decision will always offend some people.
I personally think the linked page "the long game" [1] found in this page is more interesting on this topic than the original link.
[1] https://faq.nearlyfreespeech.net/q/TheLongGame