Clearly state what is allowed and what is not. Do not pick sides and change rules on a case by case basis.

Do what you say you are going to do. That's how businesses used to earn trust. Now integrity in business is a thing of the past.

I'd rather have a bunch of crazy people expressing themselves on the web than being selectively removed due to a couple's persons opinions on what is right especially when it is not written in stone and enforced sitewide on all accounts.

If you want to say Sandy Hooks is fake, go to your own corner, like 127.0.0.1.

Obviously there are some challenges in the 'like this' part, but it seems like it might scale better and be less prone to centralized censorship problems than the current mechanism.

The sad part is that 'yzmtf2008' will exist inside of a vacuum and will miss out on things that appear crazy and may actually be true, but perhaps the upside is that this person may be more productive in other areas of life by defocusing on distractions.

The big problem is that there is no valid counter argument to conspiracy theorist. That means all conventional means of combating them are useless.

I don't agree that keeping conspiracy theorists off a platform is censorship. It's more akin to removing spam.

Jones himself argued (in his divorce hearing) that he doesn't expect anyone to believe him. I think in that case it is hard to argue it is political speech.