Hey Not_Now.Soon,

"What would you suggest?"
I'm going to have to go with 'I don't know'.

Usually I'd come up with something, but as you've alluded to there's a lot of issues to take into account.
I suppose I'd need to lay the whole thing out, look at the big picture and dismantle it piece by piece to find the fairest and most ethical way forward.
- As well as some time to think it over and foolproof it.

As shown by Alan B above, some of the issues require some thought.

I suppose at this point it's fairly easy to identify the problems;
But not so easy to find the right solutions;
- That's really all I can come up with at the moment.

"Voting for certain laws for social media to self regulate to remove any criminal elements us not a bad approach."
I'm honestly not sure I can agree it's a good or ideal approach either, it has its flaws.

"I don't think OLO has anything to worry about, because it already does some monitoring of what happens on it's site."
Graham rarely censors users content, but I think the leftists and progressives would have a field day with OLO if they thought it was influential enough to matter.
I won't be surprised if some point a team of leftist trolls converges upon this website and attacks the conservative views of the posters who use it.

I'm not familiar with the people behind the 'one way mirror' at OLO, but I like em.
They rarely 'pull' comments, and it appears they are 'reasonable' in their decisions.
I rely on a forum to allow one to communicate free and frank, without fear of being directed by censorship, which is merely another way of saying 'you will say what I want you to say and nothing else'.
There is a vial example of extremely prejudicial conduct by one of the worst forums I have ever encountered, called QUORA.
These arrogant neanderthals have a most irrelevant mantra of 'Be Nice, Be Respectful'.
I have complained many times, explaining that I will not lie or mislead simply because they have this misguided mentality of being superior or more virtuous than the rest of the world.
It is a matter of fact and reality, that if the discussion calls for a certain kind of delivery, it 'must' be said, or the point being made will not have the impact or substance required to make that point.
You see, if one is 'talking', then the message is clearly understood because of inflections.
The same conversation, in writing, cannot convey the same message because of the lack of inflection, other means are employed such as punctuation marks, inverted commas, words in capitals and so on.
It is social engineering or kidnapping to insist on people to talk a particular way.
Words were invented for the purpose of communication.
We must not entwine or use emotions to alter a natural act of the need for someone to abuse another.
It is extreme hippocracy to expect a language to change to accommodate certain people.
Where will it end.
Bullying, insulting, picking on, abusing people, these are all part of life.
The fact that some mentally tender wall flowers prefer death to toughening up and facing the challenge or ignoring it, is sad but too bad.
Those aggrieved by what is being said about them, should 'grow up' and not attack free speech and the freedom of expression by the other 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of us.

'Be Nice, Be Respectful'

What a bunch of pansies.

It's my right to tell anyone what I think;
And if they don't like it...
Then I can tell them where they can go as well.

AC, hear, hear and Kudos to you too.
I am 'buoyed' to hear when someone speaks their mind, good for you.
Even if it is to tell ME off, even better, don't you dare let the panzies and nancies try to subvert you.
If they try, hold your ground and see them off with a round of profanities, to them, it's like kryptonite is to Superman.
Good for you!

To ArmChair Critic.

OLO doesn't seem to censor much of what's said here, and for that, this site might be the rarity for open dialogue among diverse opinions. However there still is some posts removed. Not long ago I saw a post that was only a list of websites. Basically it was spam advertisement. I reported it and it was removed. I don't know what else OLO's policy is on removing comments but in at least with what I've seen, I truth them in it. How ever rare it is.

To be honest, my position is on social media is not really about forums like this one. But instead it is just about recognizing that criminals have become orginized because of social media apps. (Or at least that's a comment I've read in a paper a long time ago regarding terrorist organizations).

I'd like for kids to get away from social media a bit more because they seem too sensitive about it, like the article blaming social media for a guy's daughter killing herself. Let them get out in the world unplugged, and just toughen up, make friend and the bonds that strengthen them while their young. So my position about censorship would be about a service seeing any actual dangers in their app or their site, and to take responsibility in it. What would count as a danger? I guess that would be up to the legislation either to be voted on or agreed on by politicians. If that's too much a risk and politicians can't be trusted with censorship legislation, then fine, keep the issue out of legislation. But we should still do something to help police keep the piece, and to stop crime before it gets too big or orginized. (Call me crazy for is looking at legislation to help).

I'd be up for any other suggestions, or even if there are already other solutions already in place, just to know and to silence the exaggerated "ban all social media" approach.