"enforce a set of virtues" is a weird way of saying "enforcing basic decency". Let's be clear here, people who are rightfully banned are always going to complain. Our opinions as the majority who DO want decent conversations online are not irrelevant. We should not give those people equal weight to those facing actual censorship. Fragmenting the internet will never get rid of the problem that moderation needs to happen.

▲

biophysboy 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To be clear, if I were in charge, there would be significantly more banning and moderation on all platforms. I am arguing moderation is more politically feasible in small communities, not that is any more or less ethical.

▲

hexator 20 hours ago | parent [-]

"virtues" is just a loaded word now unfortunately.

	▲	biophysboy 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Let’s bring it back! I think being honest is good!

▲

nradov 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What is basic decency? Is it indecent to advocate for atheism or if a women posts a picture of herself not wearing a burka? Many people in certain countries would say so. Personally I think those people are insane, and that maximal freedom of expression is the most important human right, but the fundamental problem is that there is no consensus on what constitutes basic decency.

	▲	hexator 20 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I'm not talking about cultural differences. I'm talking about people simply being assholes online. You will always have a group of people complaining about the rules, that is inevitable.
	▲	biophysboy 19 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You're correct that decency is a nicer word for conformity. Preventing social discord avoids violence, but creates repression. I think the compromise is basically liberalism. Let people make their own communities. Let people switch communities, criticize other ones non-violently, enforce their own w/ democratically determined rules, etc.