The problem I have with FB (and other) moderation policies is platforms who pretend they operate on the basis of rules when they don't. Their rules are a dynami

The problem I have with FB (and other) moderation policies is platforms who pretend they operate on the basis of rules when they don't. Their rules are a dynamic pretext for a discretion they don't want to own. I would even bet that dyed in the wool Trump supporters wouldn't have a problem with him being banned if it were by people who showed a track record of acting on the basis of a consistent higher order principle other than political expedience and a will to power. I would argue that neither Zuckerberg nor Dorsey will come out and say GFY to Trump or anyone else because they are too meek and are not personally equipped to be leaders in the things they've created anymore. Appeals to higher principles like safety or whatever are only meaningful from people who actually demonstrate actuation by principle. They have become mere prime-bureaucrats operating an infrastructure on behalf of their political regulators. "It's complicated," they will say, and worry about the optics of making a judgment call, or their responsibilities to investors and "stakeholders," but really, when their companies ceased to be based on a person doing a thing for someone else at scale, it was not a product anymore, it's just an extractive casino with a governance framework. The success of HN I think comes down to some simple rules, with a very clear acknowledgement that it is moderator discretion that makes the decisions.