It's hard to imagine if you haven't experienced it yourself. You think it should work that way. You push for it, but unless you fall into the right, group you may as well be a fart in the wind.
Judge systems for their results, not their motives.
There's a third important concept: the process.
In this case, the process is pretty horrible -- the article's author has no idea what was wrong, and therefore can't remedy it. Similarly, since he doesn't know what's wrong, we can't criticize the process in any specific way, so the process can't be improved.
I guess you could say I could police my content better, but with the moving target about what's not allowed, that's an expensive proposition.
We live in a world where you’re not allowed to exist unless you (publicly profess to) believe what one of two prevailing political parties dictates is allowable, yet at the same time we pretend like you do have free speech but just have to live with social consequences of it.
I thought of something like "Facebook blocks site with user-generated content" but I'm not sure it isn't misleading.
(I'm using the term "content control" to mean something that kind of feels like censorship but not done with laws.)
Real life rarely gives you as much control as you'd like. You can't simply opt out of making decisions; even choosing not to do anything is a decision. You take your best guess based on your best interpretation of what knowledge you've managed to accumulate, but many of the most important decisions you make will always be based on insufficient information. That's true at a personal level as well as the social level.
But the point is to make some kind of prediction about the results a policy will have, so that you can later reflect on what actually does happen.
Maybe one of the other users has something really out there being shared in another subdomain
(Or it might not be a customer - but someone who found a vulnerability and is hosting questionable content unbeknownst to him)
