Ah, so in this version you have thirty-five million people who could agree on what is offensive. That's a daunting task without the "million" involved to begin with.
The point is not to censor to match current sensibilities but to censor to push society in a direction. It doesn't matter if almost everyone hates what they're selling as long as they eventually push hard enough to sell it. They are, after all, an advertising company at heart.
When you get hired as a regulation enforcer in any other scenario, it’s not your opinion but the actual regulations that determine your recourse. If it’s up to the opinions of the enforcement regime, that’s because the rules are unclear or opaque.
The fact that you believe something like content moderation can be boiled down to some hard and fast regulations, let alone a set of regulations that people could agree on, is honestly kind of scary.
I've been on various forums with "moderation standards." The different moderators still have different approaches and different reputations for being a soft touch or heavy-handed. Human moderators, despite having standards or guidelines in front of them, are not consistent. When confronted about it, they will cite interpretations, "reading the room," discretion, and so on.
We have seen this scenario play out in censorship standards, various authorities, and so on over the decades. It never works as intended.
Yes, because that's literally what the parent posited in his scenario:
"Even if there was a standard of moderation that would satisfy everyone"