Local rules instead of global censorship

Thing is first step would be to teach people again critical thinking and what the difference is between objective facts and opinions. Furthermore, something I am missing in this discussion and in general is that the concept of responsibility is lost. Sure you are allowed to say anything you like, but that does not mean there are no consequences.

In the analog world we have libel laws and some limitations on speech ( incite violence, endanger others ). For example in Germany it is straight up illegal to deny the holocaust. We as a society have decided that this is the correct decision for that instance to ensure that it won't repeat itself in some form or another in the future.

Other 'speech' laws in germany make verbally insulting others fineable, because human dignity is the fundamental principle of the German constitution. Article 1, paragraph 1 reads: "Human dignity is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority." Human dignity is thus mentioned even before the right to life.

Anyways what I am trying to say is that just as in chemistry actions will have reactions. Therefore, speech should have consequences. Ironically, republicans have preached over the years that everybody should be responsible for themselves and their actions, and not rely on others but when it is about consequences of speech they are silent.

The current state of content moderation - or lack thereof - on these platforms didn't happen by accident. It's the direct consequence of their business model.

If you create a digital space and you host millions of people, you will also pull in the fraught complexity of human relationships. The digital space isn't free from the same challenges regarding governance of communities you'd encounter in the physical world.

However, the businesses that provide the infrastructure and engineering that underpins digital spaces aren't in the "building communities" business. They are selling advertising and business intelligence. Which is a very different proposition.

As such, the very design of the large platforms never quite incorporated proper tooling that models the complexities of (self) governing millions of people in a central digital space. On the contrary.

Recommendation engines - people who you know, people to follow, this might interest you as well, this article was shared x times,... - do the exact opposite. They have helped shape emerging social dynamics which are spilling over in the real world, with real world consequences, creating social feedback loops that escape control.

Rather then acknowledging this fundamental issue, these centralized platforms assumed that they could solve this through centralized content filtering, or through centralized human moderation teams which have to follow company policies. Which is an incredibly difficult proposition considering the amount of digital data produced daily by billions of people.

So, why did they chose this type of content moderation? Because the social issues that stem from these platforms are seen as an expense which ought to be externalized. There's only an incentive to invest in content moderation to the point where the issues caused by the people they host are threatening the performance of the business model.

In that regard, I think that a "social media market" were platforms provide affordances for equitable (self)governance of communities involves a fundamental reflection/reshaping/rethinking/overhaul of the business models and business incentives that underpin such a market.

Too bad the deplatforming did not stop the insurrection at the US Capitol. But I'm sure if you just do it harder it will work.