Almost all users likely just need automated moderation through reputation (like my HN karma, or StackOverflow reputation, where a certain score is required for

Almost all users likely just need automated moderation through reputation (like my HN karma, or StackOverflow reputation, where a certain score is required for certain actions) for most their tweets. To combat viral fake news, the top 0.001% of users could have manual reviews, as should viral tweets that are about to explode into reaching hundreds of millions of users. Having a manual moderation queue for any tweet that has grown from 0 to 100M rewtweets in a certain time frame, as well as for everything tweeted by users with X million followers, would be quite a low cost. We have alredy seen some of this where Twitter has manually labeled information as being false, from e.g. Donald Trump. I doubt they'd give that treatment to any of my claims to 20 followers, and nor would they have to. Because what I write simply doesn't have the same importance when I have 20 followers. Eventually in the end, you do need the ivory tower with the ministry of truth saying exactly what is and isn't acceptable. Should Rogan's Covid conspiracy tweet be blocked? Given a warning label? Or allowed to spread? That would have to depend on the level of harm it can cause. There can't be a "marketplace of ideas" where everyone is forced to make their own judgement and where all content is acceptable. Not just because US conservatives will find it hard to tweet, or because advertisers won't advertise, but because it'll have terrible signal to noise ratio for anyone, causing it to be pretty deserted.