But what if we didn't do our sharing on centralized services, but actually used the "world wide web" as designed? If we each published what we wanted ourselves, and allowed others to request notification of (or subscribe to) what we write, why would "moderation" mean anything more or less than the editorial control that any publisher (from ourselves to the management of the New York Times) exercises, which of course balances responsibility against the desire to be read? It's the peculiar structure in which the platforms have less responsibility than other publishers (under the fiction that they are mere conduits who exercise no control over what is published) while being constantly held responsible by government for moderation that creates the incoherent situation that Douck says we have to accept, even though it would be better to reject. Another way of thinking about this can be found in a piece my law partner and I published recently in the Times of India.