> Trying to make exceptions for that .01% of the time a "gray area" can exist, while ignoring the real harm to society caused by the 99.99% "deliberate misinfor

> Trying to make exceptions for that .01% of the time a "gray area" can exist, while ignoring the real harm to society caused by the 99.99% "deliberate misinformation". The .01% is enough of a basis for a lawsuit. And grandstanding by the right claiming the company is biased (never mind that almost all "misinformation" is right leaning, so it's likely the .01% false positives are also likely right leaning). I would absolutely not want to be taking on such risks from a business perspective. If it's societal good we're aiming for, let society (elected officials) figure out how best to achieve that. Do you really trust for-profit organizations to not have their "editors" swayed by customers?