I am asking in advance if anyone has non-obvious consequences they want to point out or policy considerations they would like to raise.
I’m not sure what’s obvious for you. In an enviroment without censorship you don’t endorse a post by not censoring the post. If you however start censoring you do endorse a post by letting it stand.
Your legal and PR obligations for those posts that LessWrong hosts get bigger if you make editorial censorship decisions.
Is there any way out of this dilemma? For example having a policy where moderator flips a coin for each offending article or comment, and head = delete, tails = keep.
While I don’t know about the legality, practically what this does is add noise to the moderation signal. Posts that remain are still more likely to be ones that the moderator approves of, but might not be.
This is actually very similar to the current system, with the randomness of coin flipping substituted for the semi-randomness of what the moderator happens to see.
I’m not sure what’s obvious for you. In an enviroment without censorship you don’t endorse a post by not censoring the post. If you however start censoring you do endorse a post by letting it stand.
Your legal and PR obligations for those posts that LessWrong hosts get bigger if you make editorial censorship decisions.
AIUI this is legally true: CDA section 230, mere hosting versus moderation.
Is there any way out of this dilemma? For example having a policy where moderator flips a coin for each offending article or comment, and head = delete, tails = keep.
:D
While I don’t know about the legality, practically what this does is add noise to the moderation signal. Posts that remain are still more likely to be ones that the moderator approves of, but might not be.
This is actually very similar to the current system, with the randomness of coin flipping substituted for the semi-randomness of what the moderator happens to see.