Context: Ex-moderator here, and there is simply no way to make social media moderation consistent. Can't happen. But there are near-universal bounds that should apply in current cases. 1/ https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1347942324064579585

The problem: Moderation requires discovering the dangerous content in the first place, which is only done for the fraction of things that are reported. Most aren't. 2/

Deciding whether to take action relies on interpretation, which is inherently hit-or-miss. It's better to have multiple people weigh in, but inherently is still a judgment call. 3/

A core moderation factor is always 'Does user already have a reputation for [thing].' Perennial rulebreakers do not get the benefit of the doubt; others might. 4/

None of it is tyranny, because when you are invited to take part in a site with moderation it is with the understanding that they set the bounds, and you don't. 5/

So moderation will _always_ be inconsistent. No way around it. Different sites have different rules. BUT: 'You may not promote violence' is a no-brainer enforced by everyone but the violent. 6/

The no-brainer moderation cases were always: (1) A user calls for violence or (2) A user spreads provably false lies/hoaxes that, if believed, could be used to justify violence. 7/

For example, a Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly would be instabanned for singling out an abortion provider with claims that the provider was also committing infanticide, selling 'baby parts', etc. 8/

Because those claims quite obviously could lead to real-world violence, and if the claims are already known to be false we can presume Tucker or O'Reilly's intent was to foment that violence via sensationalism. Banned. 9/

Fox 'News' does not enforce these no-hoax rules because they use the hoaxes to bend politics in the directions they seek, and to prime a furious base to act out against the targets they name. 10/

But Twitter and Facebook do not enforce those rules because they are flatly unwilling to spend the money required to moderate platforms of their respective sizes. It would harm profits. 11/

One can easily argue that following just these two rules—No calls for violence, and no propaganda intended to justify violence—would immediately 'solve' most Twitter/Facebook moderation problems. 12/

... Including the use of both Facebook and Twitter by authoritarian, violent regimes. Spreading false information to justify violence must not be done even under color of 'government.' 13/

But enforcing would require a _huge_ human workforce, and neither site is in the business of paying anyone for anything. So Twitter/Facebook makes due with the token efforts they budget, and the result is: 14/

Wildly sporadic moderation as a relative handful of moderators scurry to handle the 0.001% they know about while ignoring, by necessity, all else. It is by design, to produce profits. It's their choice. 15/15

Also, those more outraged over these rules than the 5 dead in an attempted fascist coup are outraged because they intend to keep breaking the rules to stoke further violence. This includes multiple GOP officials. End.