The important thing is that humans review algorithmic bans, not review every tweet.

That's still a huge number.

Twitter doesn't make enough revenue to hire enough people to do that intelligently.

Then they have to raise money?

You can't operate a chemical factory without paying for adequate measures to prevent spewing toxic waste into common resources like air and water, so why should you be allowed to run a facility that spews toxic hate into societies without establishing adequate protection?!

If there is one thing that made the internet so toxic, it was services labeled as "free" that in reality were nothing more than avenues for advertisers to shove ads down our throats, with the cost being our societies breaking apart as a result of all the lone village nutcases suddenly unifying themselves and no one paying for the virtual equivalent of the police to make sure the nutcases don't create chaos.

> Then they have to raise money?

I think they're trying. ;-)

To be clear, I'm not defending Twitter. If I was in charge, I would actually shut down Twitter for the benefit of the world. My point is just the basic financial fact that Twitter doesn't have enough money to do this, and thus they won't, indeed can't.

Of all the forums, websites, social media, etc I've used, never have I experienced worse moderation than reddit. I've never been banned, but I've had comments removed for some of the most arbitrary reasons, and the average moderator seems to almost despise their own userbase, with the exception of their fellow mods.

To cite a particularly egregious example, I once saw a person banned for "giving medical advice" on /r/adhd, while not one, but multiple other moderators had also given medical advice in the exact same thread. A thread that was explicitly asking for medical advice.