3 ms·
Your first policy is reasonable, but your second is definitely not.
by josephcsible 4y ago
Your first policy is reasonable, but your second is definitely not.
- fasthands9 4y agoSure. But ultimately there is some level of arbitrary lines where you have a trade-off of overbanning or underbanning. Say you have a committee of 9 people? What's your cut-off? There isn't a clear answer - especially as norms change a bit and the committee members change.
- mbreese 4y agoI honestly don’t think it matters. The committee will answer to one person who can arbitrarily overrule the committee, whether formally or not. It’s his company and he can do what he wants with it. Any rules can be changed at any time without recourse. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. Well, it might be bad for Twitter the service, but as far as legal governance, it’s the way it works. The only limit will really be what advertisers will support. It is a business after all. But any type of council should be considered advisory at best.
- orblivion 4y agoYou could use the second standard to flag a user as "spicy" and hide them for users who prefer to be exposed to more "normal" opinions.