| Imagine the following three enforcement schemes for taking down a post due to reports: * if your post gets reported 10 times, it gets taken down * if your post gets reported (# of followers / 10) times, it gets taken down * if your post gets reported (# of followers * 100) times, it gets taken down Which of these are fair in your opinion?
For an account with a huge # of followers, the last one effectively means their posts can't be taken down. It seems a system like XCheck is a step function where at a certain point, you get exempt from certain checks altogether. The "equality" here could refer to each account's potential to go through the vetting that would give them exempt status. ============== Maybe this deserves a separate response, but another way to think of this is to compare it to income taxes. There are different income brackets that affect your marginal tax rate in the US. Is it equal for everyone to pay the same dollar amount in income taxes? The same rate? A progressive rate? Are people treated equally under the law in all these cases? In none of them? |
Who said anything about fair? The only one that is "equal treatment" is the one where 10 reports takes them down. It's shitty policy, but that's a different question isn't it? Number of followers playing a role is where treatment stops being equal. I'm not arguing what's the right way to handle this, I'm just contradicting rhetoric aiming to justify their policy by fallacious argument.
Edited to add: I don't think tax code is meant to or treats people equally, even though they're all subject to the same rules. The rules explicitly divide taxpayers into categories with different treatment.