Giving an award to a Black person has slightly different connotations when it is done at a NAACP meeting compared to a Klan meeting.

But I absolutely don't want Twitter to decide which organisations are like the NAACP and which are like the Klan. This is regardless of who runs Twitter.

Well, good luck having a readable twitter then

I don't think the problem is whether Twitter is readable. The problem is whether it is advertisable for Twitter: whether advertisers will complain about being placed next to a tweet.

Who are they going to advertise to if its not readable?

I'd rather read what people really think than what they are allowed to think.

You aren't going to read what anyone thinks because the deluge of nonsense and junk in an unmoderated environment will render it useless for such purposes.

I very much want to. I've been on the net long enough to have noticed that ultimately what makes a discussion platform worth using is the right sort of moderation. Without moderation any large enough community quickly degenerates. The best platforms tend to be stringently moderated to keep up the quality -- not only kick out the wrong people, but discourage the low effort and pointless content enough that most of what's going on is worth reading.

For instance I absolutely wouldn't be using NH if it wasn't moderated in a way I happen to like. There are the various chan-derived boards and such, but I don't see any value in even finding out which still exist, because it's just not worth it my time to wade through mountains of garbage.

What a ridiculous comparison. Let's stick to arguing in good faith, shall we?