Makes sense, as long as @jack understands: principles enforced impartially will lead to an imbalanced result under conditions of asymmetric polarization, where one side is drifting toward the extreme at a faster rate than the other. If you grasp that, then get ready for the heat.
As @caitlin__kelly pointed out, everything we know from behavioral science about conspiracy theory and wild factual claims tells us that @jack's innocent suggestion here will help spread those claims. Study up on the term "strategic silence," Jack.
For platform companies like Twitter or Facebook, the search for sensible principles that can apply to all morphs into something different: the search for a safe space in a hyper-politicized climate. That will always fail. There is no safe space. So make decisions and buckle up.
This pattern suggests that, rather than settle on defensible principles, make hard calls, explain those calls and then take the heat, Facebook and YouTube are still in refuge-seeking mode, where the actions of others provide cover and decsions flow from that. Via @brianstelter 
It's been called the bullshit asymmetry: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." Which is another problem with @jack's statement that it’s critical for journalists to refute Alex Jones directly.
Hi, @jack. In 2015 I posed this Q. to your head of news: "Twitter hiring journalists to curate [Moments] is the birth of a new editorial beast. How do we know this beast has a soul?" Read about his answers here: pressthink.org/2015/09/with-i… Still a question.
