[dapids]

What are you arguing here? That twitter is good at moderation because we simply can't see it behind the scenes?

I can think of hundred different ways this could have affected someone negatively, especially if they weren't able to speak with support in native language.

So c'mon, there is no excuse for this ban to take place, and then continue to be banned after the first appeal, statistics or not.

[micimize]

My primary points are that 24h turn around to get the issue resolved is not bad, and that blaming the AI is silly when the human in the loop didn't fix anything.

But yes, I am also saying we don't know the reality of what the content moderation team is dealing with, we basically only see the false positives. I'm not saying they're doing a good job (especially the team handling appeals), I'm saying that we should be more sympathetic to the trade-offs involved in automated moderation.

[dapids]

So, if you don't know the reality, why pretend or even give a shadow of a doubt of good faith? You've lost me man. They can do more to be transparent, but they don't. This is not a technological blocker, its a deliberate decision. Don't act like they can't show the reality of moderation, they simply choose not to. We already established in this scenario they chose to do nothing after manual review by a human. What more evidence of failure do you need. It's not working, period.