But Twitter isn't a newspaper engaging in editorial decisions. It is a massive online communications platform that is moderating posts, most often, on an automa

But Twitter isn't a newspaper engaging in editorial decisions. It is a massive online communications platform that is moderating posts, most often, on an automated basis. I don't think there's any actual support for your comparisons at all. >Simply, they need to enumerate their internal editorial policies. I think you are confused, Twitter already publishes it's moderation policies, this is a report on to what extent they stay true to that. Your argument would maybe make more sense in a context where a newspaper had to provide a report on its editorial decisions (which obviously go well beyond the letters to the editor section). But that really only actually serves to the emphasize the huge difference between editing and moderating. >In the end, there's no good answer to this question. Every answer any service would publish, is the "wrong answer". I don't think you are engaging in this topic with any honest, especially if this is the conclusion you are coming to. As far as I can tell the only wrong answer to the report would be if it was not accurate about the information it stated or was incomplete. There seems to be nothing as regards to judging whether or not a moderation system is good or bad, or "does the right thing". Let alone something so politically pointed as what you suggested.