Thus was the last thing I read before I had to get some stuff done, so I have been thinking about it more than I might normally. For the record, I think that this is a bad idea, but I kept asking myself "To what end?" --Is this intended to deflect responsibility away from Gab and put it on the user? If Gab gives the post creator the ability to decide the merits of a comment, would that then make the post creator responsible for the content? Is this in preparation for any governmental intervention in the "content creator vs publisher vs platform" discussion? Because the original poster gets to censor, would the original poster, not Gab, be responsible any comments in that post? What about government officials and entities? How much time will people spend "cleaning up" the comments section for every fabricated article that they produce? --It would soon be clear who was, and who wasn't, acting in good faith and and being honest. I would imagine that those accounts would whither and fade. --Is there anything that would stop me from quoting an entire article? If I can, essentially, create a post that quotes an entire other post, what is to stop the masses from disregarding the original post in favor of the "free speech" post? Example: Person A makes pro-vax post. Person B gets miffed that their comment about vaccine injuries was deleted by Person A. Person B has a good sized following, so Person B copy/paste/quotes the entirety of Person A's content without restrictions on speech. I would imagine that users would deprive Person A of engagement and clicks and favor Person B's contribution. Person A has to make a choice: --keep censoring, which is allowing others to profit at a greater rate than you from your effort. --Nut up and deal with other perspectives, and maybe be confronted with the possibility they they are wrong. Free speech for all. --Person A keeps at it and just...fades away into obscurity. Everything I just said could be retarded, but in case it isn't just Gab making a shit decision, why?