I found this article to be surprisingly nuanced, at least compared to the pre-conceived notions I expected. In general, I veer more towards the "free speech" en

I found this article to be surprisingly nuanced, at least compared to the pre-conceived notions I expected. In general, I veer more towards the "free speech" end of the spectrum, and this article helped to paint a picture of what it's actually like on the ground. With that being said, I think there is still a bit of naïveté in terms of their self-perception, but that's to be expected with practically anyone in any job. At a high level, these teams seem to serve as a sort of "immune system" for the platform, protecting against the indirect, implied threat of high-handed governmental regulation. It seems like they're trying to thread the needle between "We're just a platform, anyone can say anything." and "Users of our site can only say things that the company itself would say." That process will naturally be guided not only by concrete policies, but shifting social norms, the teams' evolving experience and composition, the individual members' prejudices and biases, and so on. Therefore, it's not surprising that this might produce "false positives" when the viewpoint spectrum of these teams doesn't align with the spectrums of certain subgroups of their users. The best they can really do (without abdicating responsibility and letting it percolate up to a higher level, like gov't) is try to ensure their filter spectrum is as closely aligned to their (desired?) userbase's as possible. In general, an interesting article, and worth the read.