Skip to main content
Status: Planned (Enabled through adversarial disputes with predefined rulesets)

​
The real problem with content moderation

Any platform that allows users to publish content eventually faces disputes around moderation. This includes:
  • social networks,
  • creator platforms,
  • marketplaces with reviews,
  • community forums,
  • DAO governance platforms,
  • collaborative knowledge bases.
And the problem is not whether disputes happen —
it’s who decides and how.

​
Real-world moderation disputes

These situations are extremely common:
  • A creator claims their content was unfairly removed.
  • A user is banned for “policy violations” they don’t fully understand.
  • A review is flagged as abusive, but the author says it’s legitimate.
  • A post is reported as misinformation, but evidence is disputed.
  • A DAO proposal is removed or censored due to governance conflicts.
Each case has:
  • subjective interpretation,
  • contextual nuance,
  • reputational and economic impact.

​
Why centralized moderation breaks trust

Most platforms rely on:
  • internal moderators,
  • opaque guidelines,
  • automated filters,
  • or ad-hoc admin decisions.
This creates structural issues:
  • ❌ Platforms act as judge and executioner
  • ❌ Decisions are opaque
  • ❌ Appeals are limited or non-existent
  • ❌ Bias accusations are inevitable
  • ❌ Moderation does not scale fairly
Even when moderation is well-intentioned, users often feel:
  • censored,
  • unheard,
  • arbitrarily punished.
Over time, this erodes platform trust.

​
Automation alone is not enough

Automated moderation:
  • is fast,
  • is cheap,
  • is necessary at scale.
But it fails in:
  • edge cases,
  • context-heavy disputes,
  • nuanced human judgment.
Pure automation leads to:
  • false positives,
  • unjust bans,
  • content chilling effects.
Pure human moderation:
  • does not scale,
  • is expensive,
  • introduces bias.
Platforms need a third layer.

​
The missing layer: neutral, scalable adjudication

This is where Justly fits naturally. Justly provides:
  • independent dispute resolution,
  • transparent decision-making,
  • human judgment without centralized power,
  • enforceable outcomes.
Not every moderation decision goes to Justly —
only contested or high-impact cases.

​
How Justly integrates with moderation systems

Typical flow:
  1. Content is flagged or moderated.
  2. A user disputes the decision.
  3. The case is escalated to Justly.
  4. Evidence is submitted:
    • platform rules,
    • content context,
    • prior behavior,
    • moderation rationale.
  5. Independent jurors evaluate the case.
  6. A ruling is issued.
  7. The platform enforces the outcome automatically.
The platform no longer acts as the final authority.

​
Example: creator platform dispute

  • A video is removed for “policy violation”.
  • The creator claims fair use and educational intent.
  • The platform’s automated system rejects the appeal.
With Justly:
  • the creator submits context and references,
  • jurors evaluate intent, rules, and proportionality,
  • the ruling determines:
    • content restoration,
    • partial restrictions,
    • or justified removal.
The decision is transparent and auditable.

​
Example: DAO or community moderation

  • A proposal is removed for being “spam” or “off-topic”.
  • The proposer disputes political or personal bias.
Justly enables:
  • neutral evaluation by jurors,
  • rule-based judgments,
  • legitimacy without centralized censorship.
This is especially critical for:
  • DAOs,
  • open communities,
  • governance-heavy platforms.

​
Benefits for platforms

For the platform
  • Reduced moderation liability.
  • Clear separation between rules and enforcement.
  • Scalable handling of edge cases.
  • Fewer accusations of censorship or favoritism.
For users
  • Real appeal mechanisms.
  • Transparent outcomes.
  • Confidence that disputes are judged fairly.

​
Content moderation needs legitimacy, not just rules

Rules alone don’t create trust.
Legitimate enforcement does. Justly transforms moderation from:
  • opaque authority → transparent process,
  • centralized power → distributed judgment.

​
The takeaway

Content moderation fails when:
  • users feel silenced,
  • decisions feel arbitrary,
  • appeals go nowhere.
Justly ensures that:
  • moderation remains scalable,
  • disputes remain resolvable,
  • platforms remain trusted.
Moderation-related disputes are commonly suited for Tier 1 or Tier 2, where rapid resolution and consistent enforcement are critical. See Dispute tiers.