We're probably getting closer to some ground we do agree on. It sounds like we both support the ability for communities to form around a shared set of virtues, moderation philosophy, etc. Totally. And it's okay for those communities to moderate and police themselves. What I disagree with is the idea that it's healthy for speech platforms to operate in a mode such that certain speech universally constitutes e.g. violence and must be banned. I believe that mindset is destructive towards the relatively fair playing field we've laid down at least in the US where we are supposed to protect individuals' right to express themselves.

In Twitter's case I think you've nailed it. They're so big that effective moderation that pleases everyone is simply unmanageable. What that signals to me is that practically they should be considered a speech platform. Otherwise any attempts to moderate will feel like social cherry-picking. Once classified as a platform we should treat them differently, both legally and colloquially. Legally platforms would be absolved of taking responsibility for the content posted by individuals. And colloquially if people understand they're a platform, and platforms come with self-service tools to make sure unwanted content doesn't show up front and center in your feed, then I think we can collectively mature in our approach towards and response to "dirty" content.

Anyway I don't use twitter either and don't expect nor am I really all that interested in a twitter solution. I'm abstractly defending the social maturity required to tolerate diverging viewpoints without resorting to censoring and banning and extrajudicial mob justice because I believe required to prevent oppressive majority rule.