Remember your history for one. Most boards at the time were small volunteer operations or side-jobs for an existing business. They weren't even revenue neutral, let alone positive. Getting another moderator depended upon a friend with free time on their hands who hung around there anyway. You have been downright spoiled by multimillion dollar AI backed moderation systems combined with large casts of minimum wage moderators. And you still think it is never good enough.

Your blatant ignorance of history shines further. Lazy moderation was the starting point. The courts fucked things up as they wont to do by making lazy moderation the only way to protect yourself from liability. There was no goddamned way that they could keep up instantly with all of the posts. Section 230 was basically the only constitutional section of a censorship bill and was designed to specifically 'allow moderation' instead of opposed to 'lazy moderator'. Not having Section 230 means lazy moderation only.

God, people's opinions on Section 230 have been so poisoned by propaganda from absolutely morons. The level of knowledge of how moderation works has gone backwards!

You say "spoiled", I say "ruined". Volunteer moderation of the commons is much different from a platform claiming to deny liability for 99% of content but choosing to more or less take the roles of moderation themselves. Especially with the talks of AI

My issue isn't with moderation quality so much as claiming to be a commons but in reality managing it as if you're a feudal lord. My point it that they WANT to try to moderate it all now, removing the point of why 230 shielded them.

And insults are unnecessary. My thoughts are my own from some 15 years of observing the landscape of social media dynamics change. Feel free to disagree but not sneer.