The conversation with Todd from Purism was completely unproductive in my mind. In his view, there are only two possible options for moderation:
• Become a complete censorship machine with a slippery slope of who can or cannot speak
• Go by the jurisdiction users are in, hiding content illegal in certain jurisdictions and then removing content illegal in the poster's jurisdiction, for example a Chinese user's dissent against the Chinese gov't would be removed.
There are two problems that I brought up that, being that:
• Purism would be participating in the injustices of those countries
• Legal but harmful content would still be allowed, thus spreading harm.
I felt completely ignored when trying to get this across to him, especially that last bit. I also tried explaining to him that a slippery slope does not exist when you have set principles that you stick to within rules, but that completely flew over his head. It also ended with him basically telling me to solve the problem with a solution that works for every country everywhere and then get back to him. So, the block & boycott of Purism continues.