> You'd rather genocide than Google and Facebook be less profitable. Full stop

Again this abuse of Fear & emotions to deny engaging in actual discussion. I keep feeling like you have nothing but condemnation & scorn to offer, endless protest but no willingness to acknowledge, and that your words lack reason & justification & instead are loaded with emotion & zealous conviction.

> a giant evil ad company enabling genocide

Legally mandated genocidal information. The government & military itself were spreading the genocidal messages. I don't agree with this, everyone agrees the reaction could have been faster. But I also understand & appreciate that it wasn't always clear what was happening, that trying to respond to a government going bad, quietly, & pushing dark propoganda is not easy. You keep trying to make it look simple, to emphasize only how any disagreement, how any search of moderation is unreasonable: the word genocide sends chills down our spines, is starkly reprehensible. But the practical challenge here is still valid; identifying what's happening, figuring out how to deploy sufficient intelligence to resist governmental & civilian information war, fighting each battle, each piece of content, as it streams in from across the globe: the challenge is significant, is a war effort fought on behalf of a people, a hard war effort. Acknowledge that. Don't escape to reductionism.

I think it's crass & foolish to regard companys with such grim-dark-shaded glasses. These companies are a mix of many things. Yes, they have ads (like all companies they seek to make money). Yes many are quite big/giants. But they also have some noble & good purposes (helping us find information, watch cool videos, share with our friends & family, host our content, provide online hangout places), and generally, I think they execute fairly well, that the tradeoffs are reasonable & all in all not badly slanted against users in the vast majority of circumstances. Ultimately they sell ads by competing to be better places than the other online places; that diversity & competition is something I cherish & which I believe in, keeps us pointed forward.

You dismiss me out of hand, in my view because I have asked us to see & acknowledge shades of gray & difficulties & think these are hard problems. Again you violate site guidelines here, and reduce a long case to simplistic out of hand dismissal:

> Please don't post shallow dismissals

Your replies keep circling back to the simple, again in violation of guidelines:

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

And you have only belittled and insulted me, rather than taken my arguments as serious. Violation of this guideline:

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Let me restate my case, yet again, because I agree it might not be clear where I'm coming from, why I would mount these defenses.

I think different sites have a right to govern themselves. Taking that away takes away diversity. That's of tantamount importance to me. I believe some sites we have today will wreck & ruin themselves all on their own good time. But if we try to regulate & restrict, I believe we'll create legal quagmires that newer smaller would-be upstarts will be unable to ever face: we should not be creating vast new barriers. Legal permissiveness, with some acceptance of mistakes, is required. We cannot expect techno-mystical solutionism, nor have utopian expectations of perfect regulation.

As for genocide, the fact that the state & military of Myanmar itself were disseminating much of the information is one basic neutron-moderator I'd try to carefully insert into your nuclear-blow-up reaction of accusations against me. Trying to understand, no, the government is lying to us, they are are committing genocide & using us is hard to understand. Particularly for an insular far off country that generally lacks good telecommunications infrastructure for people to express & share with; the people suffering themselves also use big platforms to get the word out about what is really happening, when they are able to get access.

Please, let's have nuance & balance in our views. Figuring out what to do with user-content is not easy. All in all, I'm quite proud of how organized & sensible what we have is. Personally I'd prefer other models, would like to see something better distributed, but I cannot argue with the level of access people have, and how unhindered & how possible it is for people to participate & share.

It's remarkable, & anyone snubbing what we have needs to be able to demonstrate that they have some appreciation for how vastly more able everyone on the planet is at communicating & expressing themselves. I don't see that moderation or sensibility in your calls for restriction & constraint, I don't see the Anti-Section 230 brigade willing to acknowledge or address that simple fact, that unignorable wonderful human dignity that has gotten created & expanded upon in this age, imperfect though it may be.