The public thinks about moderation in terms of content. Large social networks think in terms of behavior. Like let's say I get a chip on my shoulder about... the Ukraine war, one direction or another. And I start finding a way to insert my opinion on every thread. My opinion on the Ukraine war is fine. Any individual post I might make is fine and contextual to the convo. But I'm bringing down the over-all quality of discussion by basically spamming every convo with my personal grievance.
Some kinds of content also gets banned, like child abuse material and other obvious things. But the hard part is the "behavior" type bans.
> Any individual post I might make is fine and contextual to the convo. But I'm bringing down the over-all quality of discussion by basically spamming every convo with my personal grievance.
Isn't this how a healthy society functions?
Political protests are "spam" under your definition. When people are having a protest in the street, it's inconvenient, people don't consent to it, it brings down the quality of the discussion (Protestors are rarely out to have a nuanced conversation). Social Media is the public square in the 21st century, and people in the public square should have a right to protest.
Some kinds of content also gets banned, like child abuse material and other obvious things. But the hard part is the "behavior" type bans.