I love sandboxes. We had one in our yard when I was a kid. Infocomms can have as much moderation as they want because, first, they’re a private company, unlike gov-black-contracted Facebook, and second, this forum has specific goals in minds, certain objectives, specifically, at least in theory, or they could. Facebook was said to not have those same goals that Infocomms has or could have.
I’m saying this as a reminder and some people may not understand this and some people might cry and might try to falsely compare Facebook with this forum and some people can do that as Facebook appears to be like the standard for social networks in the minds of some people in the 2010’s, globally, generally, psychologically, but these people might be a bit mistaken with a standard like that. Facebook became a public town square where anything goes, in theory or originally that is (and not now of course). But Infocomms might not be a public square. Yes, Owen Shroyer might have said that the Infocomms should be or could be like a public square. He said, don’t censor people or something. So, he might have said that. People might have said those things. But nevertheless, the Infocomms is not Facebook for a few reasons like I said.
I’m just trying to say that some people may say that they don’t get that, if that is the case, or they may disagree. So, when you run into people who might say that every website has to be like Facebook in never ever banning people (hypothetically, because Facebook does ban people now) or in never ever censoring or never ever moderating or whatever.
I’m trying to say that people will cry wolf or people will demand for things that they don’t deserve. They might lie to say that Facebook is a human right and that all websites must be like what Facebook was originally back before they were censoring people. So, our challenge might be in dealing with people who don’t get it. There are differences. Some of the differences might be subtle.