diff --git a/HarmfulCommunications201908.org b/HarmfulCommunications201908.org
index b2b1df9..57d8e4e 100644
--- a/HarmfulCommunications201908.org
+++ b/HarmfulCommunications201908.org
@@ -672,6 +672,38 @@
    on what the service providers do about it. Many argue that they are
    not doing anything, or at least not enough.
 
+   However, this is an unfortunate mischaracterisation of the
+   situation. For example, facebook employs -- either directly or
+   through out-sourcing contracts -- many 10s of thousands
+   "moderators", whose job is to make a decision to remove offensive
+   material or not, to suppress someone's freedom of expression or
+   not, based on a set of if-then-else questions.
+   - It's illegal in Germany to say anything that can be construed as
+     glorifying the Holacaust. In the UK it isn't. Facebook can
+     suppress such information from users it believes are in Germany,
+     but to do so for those in the UK would be an illegal denial of
+     free expression, regardless of how objectionable the material
+     is. What is facebook to do with users in Germany who route their
+     internet connections through the UK? Facebook has no knowledge of
+     this unusual routing, and to learn about it could be a violation
+     of the user's right to privacy. Should facebook be criminally
+     liable for a German user seeing statements that are illegal in
+     Germany?
+   - Consider the genocide of Armenian people in Turkey in 1915. It is
+     illegal to claim it happened in Turkey. However, it's illegal in
+     France to claim it didn't happen. In most other countries,
+     neither claim is illegal. What can a service like facebook do
+     when faced with 3 options, 2 of which are mutually exclusive?
+     Literally, should they be criminally liable both if they do /and/
+     if they don't?
+
+   Modertors have no more than a minute to determine whether a
+   statement complies with the law of not, and this includes figuring
+   out whether the posting meets the definitions of abusive or
+   harmful, and whether it is indeed intended to meet that
+   definition. For example, imagine an abusive tweet, and then the
+   target of the abuse quoting it 
+
 ** CONSTODO Content moderation
 ** CONSTODO Investigation support 
 * CONSTODO Answers to consultation questions