A bunch of things that make sense about banning spam and spammy behaviour and then the payload: How banning discussion of the lab leak hypothesis back then made sense and wasn't politically motivated.
Of course it wasn't about the content, of course. Neither was Hunter's laptop story ban about the content, no, of course not.
I wouldn't broadcast I have this limited reading comprehension if the CIA was waterboarding me.
Conspiracy theories coming due to being motivated by the content is literally discussed on the text and you decide to skip all that and just do the thing he is saying is a problem. With no hint of irony whatsoever...
Here is the specific tweets you might need to re-read
> Now back to where we were… when we left off, I was talking about how people are subconsciously influenced by the specific content thatʻs being moderated (and not the behavior of the user) when they judge the moderation decision.
When people look at moderation decisions by a platform, they are not just subconsciously influenced by the nature of the content that was moderated, they are heavily - overwhelmingly - influenced by the nature of the content!
Would you think the moderation decision you have a problem with would be fair if the parties involved were politically reversed?
Of course it wasn't about the content, of course. Neither was Hunter's laptop story ban about the content, no, of course not.
Give me a break.