I don't accept the premise that the enforcement is done in good faith to begin with - there's no reason to. A bad faith actor can use a weak justification to se

I don't accept the premise that the enforcement is done in good faith to begin with - there's no reason to. A bad faith actor can use a weak justification to selectively enforce the independently verifiable rule whenever they feel like it. The guy who made the decision, spent 10 years working for John Kerry, Barbara Boxer and the Democratic party prior to his role at Facebook. Why should the USA policy director be magically different from the India one? They both engaged in politically biased selective enforcement, yet you want me to give him the benefit of the doubt. I will not. There is no reason to. Why do these companies allow 10 year political veterans to take these positions?