If they wanted to really add value, they could write their decisions like SCOTUS does, as the reasoning in the decisions would be available to all involved, and

If they wanted to really add value, they could write their decisions like SCOTUS does, as the reasoning in the decisions would be available to all involved, and they would be taking ownership of their assessments, with Elon as a tiebreaker for them. The discourse around those decisions itself would add value to the platform and the internet. The "public editor" role at newspapers is close, but it's still one person, and they're usually just sustaining critical narrative anyway, but run it like SCOTUS instead. I'd like to see the arguments and rationale of the people who prevail, and the ones who dissent, as it demonstreates the integrity and legitimacy necessary to wield this kind of power, imo. The main tension in the culture comes down to really old dichotomies between material vs. essential, and the material has prevailed so much that language itself has been subordinated to exigent material ends. The balance I would strike on a board like that would be any decision would need to sit on a foundation of open principles and axioms, many of which could seem to be in conflict with each other, and then the given situation would indicate which principle prevails in a given decision. That way, even if you get ruled against, or a policy comes out that sweeps you up in it, you have been given your just due.