In another place, JD said:

we don't want to be in the business of deciding what constitutes hate speech.

...

As for porn: If we gave a precise definition, and a porn merchant found a loophole or a way around it, they could then come at us and force us to accept their pornographic images, and we might have to shut down.

So, let's see what happens, and if we need to refine our site rules, we will.

I agree with you that having to police your space for content is a distasteful business. But you already recognise the necessity of doing this for porn - the definition of which is just as contentious as the definition of hate speech. And people being people sooner or later someone will try to test your limits, or (if you refuse to regulate hate speech) someone will come across something really offensive and ourmedia will attract a lot of bad press.

Even if you disagree that banning controversial content is necessary, some form of tagging scheme whether for sexual content, violence or hate speech would seem to be necessary if you want to encourage the use of ourmedia in schools and libraries. I worry that if teachers and librarians have no way of "protecting" kids from content that might offend those kids' parents, they will not direct them to ourmedia and indeed might end up blocking access to it. That would (in my view) be a worse evil, as it seems to me if organizations like ourmedia are going to encourage citizen creativity long-term, a good relationship with schools will be very important.


Just my 1 pence...