Context: Ex-moderator here, and there is simply no way to make social media moderation consistent. Can't happen. But there are near-universal bounds that should apply in current cases. 1/

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1347942324064579585

The problem: Moderation requires discovering the dangerous content in the first place, which is only done for the fraction of things that are reported. Most aren't. 2/

This is dicey ground, but I'd like a stab at explaining why the Sanders and Warren voting blocks are not nearly as aligned as the current deluge of hot takes presume them to be. 1/ I don't think Sanders' team understands that many of Warren's voters are not necessarily his if she drops out, and it isn't because of spite or snake emojis but a real skepticism towards Sanders' claims and his methods. 2/

A major reason we are where we are today is b/c the national press rewards elected liars, rather than disgracing them. There is no incentive not to lie to the public.

There's 'fact checking' columns now, but the results don't impact actual coverage. At all. U.S. lawmakers are baldly, flatly lying about provable facts throughout the impeachment hearings. This is an inherently corrupt act, not a partisan one. But no network or paper treats it as the betrayal of public trust that it is.

So what could Trump have done that has IC whistleblower and the IG in hair-on-fire mode? Trump has complete discretion over declassifying anything he wants, whenever he wants. So it's not that. 1/ One of the few 'promises' Trump could make to a foreign leader that would cause panic is if he promised to expose a 'source' or 'method'—say, by promising he'd reveal the identity of a spy. 2/