In the present day, it is no secret that Facebook is aiming for “zero-rating” throughout the developing world, looking to capture the “next billion” on their network.

But that is the snide response, and is, of course, a gross overgeneralization.

In his article for Wired, Adrian Chen quoted a former YouTube content moderator as saying, “Everybody hits the wall, generally between three and five months. You just think, ‘Holy shit, what am I spending my day doing? This is awful.’”

A “true threat” doesn’t mean that the threatener actually intends to carry out the threat. True threats are presently ill-defined. The most recent case involving true threats, Elonis v. United States, has not offered any elaboration on the subject. But we do know that true threats are separate from the Brandenburg Test. A true threat doesn’t have

Online anonymity isn't responsible for the prevalence of horrible behavior online. Shitty moderation is. - Zoë Quinn, March 21st, 2015

Reddit’s supposed commitment to free speech is actually a punting of responsibility.

Any anti-harassment strategy that focuses on deletion and removal is doomed to spin in circles, damned to the Sisyphean task of stamping out infinitely replicable information.

For persecuted individuals, there is no eternal frontier to flee to. Certainly one could retreat by deleting one’s entire online presence, but this is not the promise of a boundlessly big internet.

Bayesian filers looked through massive amounts of emails over time and gradually determined that certain words or combinations of words were associated with spam, thus allowing for a filter to bounce emails that matched that profile. We are of course familiar with what spam morphed into in response to Bayesian filters: when spam breaks through our