"Anti-abuse" in practice is revenue-negative; regardless of whether you think it's a good moral position, kicking people with tons of followers off the platform

"Anti-abuse" in practice is revenue-negative; regardless of whether you think it's a good moral position, kicking people with tons of followers off the platform for starting inter-celebrity drama (or sometimes for no clear reason at all) reduces platform engagement. If they really wanted to, they could provide cost-free tooling that would let people prevent seeing "abusive" tweets (email spam prevention is a solved problem after all), but putting humans in the loop is done so they can decide at a whim the spectrum of acceptable opinion (try merely insulting a Saudi-affiliated account & see how quickly you get banned, now that the KSA owns more of them than Jack does). So given that they're losing money & the position is revenue-negative, the scenarios are: - Bought by Google or somesuch, which has their own robust content filtering teams, making you redundant - Bought by hedge fund as a moneymaking venture, making you redundant I would not sign up.