Comment by corinroyal

It's not that hard to stop most bad actors on social networks. The key is wanting to. When volume of engagement matters more than quality, then you get what we have. Strong moderation and terms of service enforcement are a prerequisite for productive conversation. If you want to be a member of the Rotary Club in good standing, there are rules to follow, and you will be judged by leadership and your peers. But the worst anti-social behavior is, not just tolerated, but encouraged on most mainstream sites. People act as though all speech is equally valid and are unwilling to make basic moral or intellectual judgements. Until someone has the backbone to define what is acceptable, we'll remain in the woods.

For example, today on HN there was another long thread about homelessness. We had people claiming that Gavin Newsom gave out cash in the 90's. We had people claiming that most homeless people have given up looking for work due to mental illness. We had people claiming that people come from all over to San Francisco because of how much better it is to be homeless there. None remotely true.

Should these opinions be permitted in public forums? This is not a hard question. It's never acceptable to pollute the infosphere with disinformation, either intentional or inadvert. It's never acceptable to pontificate about things one has never bothered to understand. If you censor such hot takes, you open space for people who know something about the topic to weigh in.

What disturbs me is how obvious this conclusion is. We all control our friend circles to avoid problematic people, yet new social media initiatives are still free-for-alls in which nefarious actors and hidden hierarchies call the shots. We build sewers, then complain about the smell.