> So, am I incorrect to infer you don't want sites (somehow) banning just illegal stuff, and badly implemented moderation -- you want well-implemented moderation that "just works"?
You’re not only incorrect, you’re astronomically wrong. I pointed out one approach that we know doesn’t work, specifically to answer someone who made that suggestion. I haven’t made any comment or judgement on other solutions.
> but you still ... just want it!
No, no I do not. You’re not just “inferring”, you’re down right constructing a straw man from things I never claimed. That’s the opposite of constructive discussion.
> "shtick"
A schtick is a defining characteristic. Twitter’s character limit is a shtick. Doesn’t mean it’s good or bad.
> the "far right" boogie man, no?
You keep using that expression. More caricatures. The social networks I had in mind cater to the far right and don’t hide it, that’s their growth plan. If you felt attacked, that’s on you.
