Sorry, this is a bit rambling. People want more of one thing, but will not accept less of another. For instance: * some people complain platforms over-modera

Sorry, this is a bit rambling. People want more of one thing, but will not accept less of another. For instance: * some people complain platforms over-moderate but then cry when moderation does NOT prevent things they don't like. * some people want platforms held responsible for material users post, but then bulk at the idea of paying for an account and refuse to accept no one will host content for pennies in advertising then pay millions in damages when that content is found damaging. * people object to misleading content but then object to fact checking (especially if they don't like the facts) * people want platforms to be child-safe (which no one agrees on the definition of) but again won't pay I actually think Twitters "minimalist" approach to moderation was both economically and socially the least-bad compromise. I think there is a constant trade off both between and within 3 core variables: * freedom of expression * cost/revenue * "bad" things (from porn to scams to copyright infringement to seeing other peoples' opinions) I fear Musk fell for the "everyone is like me and will like things I like" fallacy and has tried to make Twitter more what he wanted. Now people whose preferred point on that 3D surface he has moved away from are upset he moved away and people he got closer to are upset he did not move enough. And plenty of other people are not prepared to admit there is a trade off: they want a platform where they can say whatever they like, but an army of moderators with 100% accuracy remove anything they don't like and it costs 0USD per year.