Don't be a Logic Zombie!!!

I wouldn't say logic is bad, but I can see how you can use logic to justify just about anything. 

It is good to be a reasonable person, but reason isn't an end in itself.

Logic certainly shouldn't be taken as an idol before The Truth.

Moral realism is calling.

"People know deep down what is right and what is wrong. You know the truth. You just need the courage to face the facts."

Moral realism is calling.

...we all must adhere to the same moral precepts nevertheless.

I was referring to actual written and enforceable laws. Some are very specific, some are more universal. My point being that the law attempts to eliminate personal intuition from the equation and requires everyone to follow the same moral standards.

Law is codified mob rule.

What other options are there? Is there a middle ground between mob rule and anarchy? Should society be more or less tolerant of potentially offensive content or actions when the feelings of a few people can sway an entire policy?

we will be subject to the whims of the Tyranny of the Thin Skinned.

The rule making process should have the goal of making as few rules as necessary with as few exceptions as possible and based on easy to understand principles with the express purpose of being durable over long periods of time.

I think the method described in the podcast is pretty close to a hypothetical ideal.

You really think rules enforced by a computer intelligence is ideal?

What method in the podacast do you refer to and ideal on what criterion?   If your goal is to process millions of new posts, photos and videos per day then a rigid set of rules and with clearly defined exceptions is the only practical solution.  i note that the rules have to be rigid in how they are implemented but flexible in that they must be kept under review and subject to amendment.   The review and amendment proecedures at facebook seemed to be reactive, ad hoc and based on the personal judgement of senior individuals - there is no consultation with the community at all!

The problem is that journalists are paid to write stories.   They don't mind if it's a story about facebook spiking something or about facebook not spiking something!   Either will do to fill a few column inches and pay the rent.  It just needs a talent for faking indignation.

Also, a computer intelligence might have difficulty determining intent which should be taken into consideration in my opinion.

The rules should be refined so they can be enforced with a minimum of subjective analysis.

I don't disagree, but it takes a lot of balls to stand up to a storm of criticism - especially if it threatens to affect the share price.   Facebook is too big too be laissez-faire and too big to be micro-managed.  DArt get problems with less than a dozen active members; facebook has billions.

but a decision about a facebook post has to be made in seconds at most.  It does not follow that what is right for facebook is right for jury trials that can take days or weeks.

I believe that all rules should be based on explicit axioms and should not be open to interpretation.

I don't think we disagree on the basic principle, but I see a problem where an unforseen or unforeseeable case means following the letter goes against the spirit.  Do you punish someone who does something the rules inadvertently forbid?

I don't trust the robots or their programmers.

There is no room for mercy with these robots.