The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

That is a pretty clear distinction. A separate site has separate administration, can be blocked separately, etc. Otherwise you have additional rules: disallow direct links to forbidden content that causes it to render on the page, disallow linking to specific forbidden content, disallow links to on blacklisted domains, allow only whitelisted domain links.

I came away with the exact same takeaway. If you really want to convince people that content moderation is a hard problem, just ask them to listen to this Radiolab episode about Facebook's struggle: https://radiolab.org/podcast/post-no-evil

It's much more convincing.

The word vehicle is up to interpretation, so it helps to not use umbrella terms like vehicle. Anything used to move goods or person is technically a vehicle. However in the a conventional understanding it is the embodiment of what would move goods or person, functional or not, to carry out a task not recreational unless also used with the intent not recreational. If both it becomes a recreational vehicle.

Recreation / Not Practical = Other

Not Recreational / Practical = Vehicle

Recreational / Practical = Recreational Vehicle

You don't have to agree with me on this. I know the definition says otherwise, I'm just speaking on the perception of what people think in society a vehicle is. As it would sound really funny to refer to toys as vehicles.

Also to expand on this. Drones they are recreational but also practical, you might use your drone for recreational things but nothing practical so it is just a drone. But the second you start flying packages it becomes practical. This makes it a recreational vehicle. If it is exclusively for delivery like Amazon Drone, it is just a vehicle.

It's about common sense.

Police/fire/ambulances are there for emergencies, their drivers have better training (theoretically) in safe driving, and the vehicles bring attention to themselves.

Uncle Jim Bob trying to drive his Buick around is what's obviously prohibited as that's the vehicle/driver most likely to cause harm...

Exactly. There is a clear majority in the answers. Sure, there are edge cases, but they are edge cases.

But I also want to say this is a really cool website. I love how he used this experience to set the table for what is otherwise essentially a blog post. Very cool.

But to hone in a bit more:

> It was about content moderation. Specifically, some people think that there could be simple rules for Internet content that are easy to apply.

His experiment not only doesn't prove this because of the observation you made (there is a clear majority opinion), but also because the "simple rules" people want ARE simple in contrast to the current standard of assuming you need to be a moral authority. The supposed simple rules aren't simple because they avoid controversy. They are simple because they don't avoid controversy. They are minimal. Basically just take the stuff virtually everyone agrees on, or is illegal/possibly illegal. Yes, there are gray areas there. There are always gray areas. But the gray areas surrounding "we need to shape productive discourse" is a lot more controversial than the gray areas surrounding "is this legal?" Once you stop using moderation to implicitly endorse speech you aren't as responsible for anything that is said. This is the entire point of section 230.

And before someone says "well if you have offensive content then advertisers will leave," I want to point out that is not a content moderation problem. That is an advertiser attraction problem. If the goal is advertiser attraction then we are playing a completely different game and you should remove everything that is remotely controversial. Or consider that your business model is inherently bad for speech.