I specifically mentioned Facebook because of how Facebook's news feed algorithm works. It's engagement based, and those algorithms are easy to saturate to specific types of content.
Reddit has a fundamentally different approach to front-page content and discovery, and moderation in general.
But even on Reddit, which is fairly permissive, they have hard boundaries which have little, if anything, to do with the "law".
But this isn't true. Social media was pretty much a free for all (except for porn) until 2015ish and it was growing rapidly the whole time. The whole argument that this type of content will drive away users is completely contradicted by history.
It's a bit of a straw man to say that GP meant we shouldn't enforce the law in the real world.
GP wasn't very clear what he meant, but presumably he's referring to not doing excessive moderating and instead rely on the law mandates.
More ~~laws~~rules, less justice. When you have a lot of internal policies, you're inevitably going to have ridiculous results such as this one. If you only follow the legal rules (which you have to) there's less unfairness.
(Of course, you have to have some internal policies such as not allowing spam, but the point is: the fewer onerous rules, the better.)
Well, but that is literally one of the arguments for legalizing drugs.
The issue here is more like defining what crime is, though, not stopping it. Stopping stuff on FB is easy. Figuring out what to stop, is hard. Figuring out if a disputed case should have been stopped is hard. For the 'real world' we have parliaments and courts, but there's FB has only the equivalent of police, not the other parts of the system. It is, in effect, a police state.
"Well, just make everything legal."