Let's take the core points at the end in reverse order:
> 3: Could you still moderate if you canʻt read the language?
Except, moderators do read the language. If think it is pretty self-serving to say that users views of moderation decisions are biased by content but moderators views are not.
> 2: Freedom of speech was NEVER the issue (c.f. spam)
Spam isn't considered a free speech issue because we generally accept that spam moderation is done based on behavior in a content-blind way.
This doesn't magically mean that any given moderation team isn't impinging free speech. Especially when there are misinformation policies in place which are explicitly content-based.
> 1: It is a signal-to-noise management issue
Signal-to-noise management is part of why moderation can be good, but it doesn't even justify the examples from the twitter thread. Moderation is about creating positive experiences on the platform and signal-to-noise is just part of that.
> 3: Could you still moderate if you canʻt read the language?
Except, moderators do read the language. If think it is pretty self-serving to say that users views of moderation decisions are biased by content but moderators views are not.
> 2: Freedom of speech was NEVER the issue (c.f. spam)
Spam isn't considered a free speech issue because we generally accept that spam moderation is done based on behavior in a content-blind way.
This doesn't magically mean that any given moderation team isn't impinging free speech. Especially when there are misinformation policies in place which are explicitly content-based.
> 1: It is a signal-to-noise management issue
Signal-to-noise management is part of why moderation can be good, but it doesn't even justify the examples from the twitter thread. Moderation is about creating positive experiences on the platform and signal-to-noise is just part of that.
The