>One alternative could be to restore the authority of the processes that societies have evolved over the last two hundred years - courts. Given that modern social networks essentially act as public space, a gateway between the digital and meatspace world, they should also be regulated by independent authorities.

That would set a precedent that any site with any user supplied content must require intervention and approval by a court before any form of moderation can take place, or at least that all sites must require court approval for their terms of service. which by extension means all speech on the web will be under direct government control. That would include Hacker News and any blog that allows comments.

This is a much greater degree of control over freedom of speech than exists in public spaces in the real world - where people can speak freely generally without government enforced moderation, and in any case websites are not public spaces. So on top of everything else, governments would assert unprecedented control over free enterprise and freedom of association.

And it doesn't matter where you decide to draw the line, perhaps only requiring this level of regulation for sites with a certain number of users, this being Hacker News I shouldn't have to point out the potential slippery slope in having the government decide where that line is drawn.

The situation we're in now is bad, but needing a judge to sign off on every moderation action would be much, much worse.