> Its far different than the more "computer like" encoding

I'm not sure I agree; more like we found it's not just controlled by just Boolean data, but also lots of numerics (continuums). That doesn't necessarily make it non-simulate-able, but rather just requires a much larger and fancier simulation.

But that same setting also inversely controls brain size.

No, evangelicals will claim The Devil messed stuff up. It's like epicycle ring layers: throw enough magic personalities into the mix, and anything is eventually "explained".

At least a few should have a high tuning leverage out of sheer probability.

That would be covered by the reader threshold. Mom-and-pop sites are not normally going to get high volumes. If something happens to "go viral", then you'd be obligated to inspect it. Maybe an exception can be given if such spikes are rare. But if your site *regularly* has content that has say 50k+ views a month, then you should know to keep an eye out.

As far as doxxing, if somebody points out an unwanted address or phone number, the mom-and-pop can just take it down, as there shouldn't be any such thing in there to begin with. Except maybe for businesses: If it's a business contact directory, that's a bit more complicated, but generally would be considered a commercial endeavor, not citizen expression, and commercial endeavors are generally more heavily regulated.

> Why on earth then would one imagine that DNA would contain useless bits?

One conservative joker called them "union genes". Agree or not about unions, it's funny.

since the discovery of the DNA double helix some 70 years ago, which was all about DNA leading to proteins. "It appears that we may have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of genetic programming,"

How could they miss a potentially significant portion of genetic machinery for that long? Usually somebody notices an odd repeatable phenomenon in say worms that hints at something new or bigger. Is this "mass subtlety"?

Too many are shouting "fire" in a proverbial crowded theatre.

The problem is that trolls and bots can flood you with dodgy take-down requests to shape content into their agenda or sink your site. I propose elsewhere that a readership threshold should be what triggers a vetting requirement.

Maybe they can be combined. Take-down notices of low-readership content perhaps can be ignored, except for extreme cases, such as doxxing.

I believe a content item should change category to "curated content" when it reaches a threshold of readers (such as diff IP addresses per day*). If your algorithms promote dangerous or defamatory content and you don't bother to check such high-rankers, then you should be held accountable.

* An imperfect metric, but good enough for stated purpose.

The ancient Deep Romans rigged tree rings to make it look cold back then!

> teacher told them never to use Wikipedia because anyone could edit it

It's still a good source of potential leads, as content is supposed to have citations. Just verify the leads before submitting any school-work based on them.

Reporters shouldn't be picky about leads, only the verification of conclusions based on them.

I'm inventing PirateGPT that will learn to hide and erase watermarks. Funded via Piratecoin.

Dark Matter research is powered by Dark Funding :-)

"Oops, I accidentally bribed and rigged."