> If platform published their content rules and publicly demonstrated how they apply them equally I doubt we would be having any of these discussions. They do

> If platform published their content rules and publicly demonstrated how they apply them equally I doubt we would be having any of these discussions. They do (or at least the publishing part). Who decides whether or not they apply them "equally"? The government? Like you want the Trump administration to have decision making power over whether or not Twitter is fairly moderating content? > Instead we have "moderation" that always favors one political line of thought. This is certainly a claim made. I view things differently: right-wing media and pundits have been treated with kid gloves for decades now. The shift to treating them "fairly" is viewed as discrimination, much the same way as certain groups on the far right have viewed every other example of "objective" fair treatment as discrimination, since they ultimately feel as though they've lost some privilege. You may view things differently, but you're clearly biased (and perhaps, so am I). So why should I trust you to make objective decisions here?