His ultimate point: > No large platform can satisfy user preferences because users will disagree over what content should be moderated off the platform and wha

His ultimate point: > No large platform can satisfy user preferences because users will disagree over what content should be moderated off the platform and what content should be allowed. But he makes to attempt to say what we should do about it. In my view, we should not try to make explicit coding of rules so precise as to be automatable, but rather make it clear, to the communities the platforms serve, what the values are that underlie the rules, and to say "apply the rules in line with their spirit." This is the same sort of reasoning humans use in everyday life, it's why you don't get ticketed for jaywalking across an empty street, and it's why courts get flexibility with their interpretations of law. The value underlying "no vehicles in the park" is that a park should be a place for recreation and all-ages shared use. This implies the space should be free from the danger posed by the regular traffic of a busy street. A motorized wheelchair doesn't pose this danger so it is allowed. Nor does a bicycle, unless we're talking about a large amount of bicycles representing a heavy flow of traffic, because that traffic would be dangerous to kids in the park.