If you've ever wondered why Internet companies don't follow their own rules, this is it. The one time Twitter attempts to elevate social discourse by experimenting with moderation that goes outside the binary leave up/takedown scheme, it's met with an #executiveorder.

Before #Section230, we had the "moderator's dilemma." Services could attempt to moderate in an effort to promote a healthier/friendlier environment. But they would do so at the risk of legal liability for any content that slipped through the cracks.

On the other hand, they could choose not to moderate, avoid any legal liability, and accept their resulting anti-social, garbage-filled cesspools. #Section230 made it so that they wouldn't have to choose between legal liability and trolls.

Though content moderation is a zero-sum game in that it creates winners and losers, services still work hard to improve their sites. This is mostly thanks to advertisers and social pressures. Unfortunately, though, the moderator's dilemma has returned in full force.

While 230 averts fears of legal liability, the looming threat that the immunity will be obliterated upon one false step now factors into every Trust & Safety decision. This means politicians, like Trump, get to break rules because it's not worth putting 230 at risk.

Ironically, politicians are PRECISELY the types of users that must be policed, moderated, and fact-checked. Their status, their ability to speak authoritatively, and their reach can fuel misinformation and disinformation campaigns further and faster than any regular user.

The fact-check tool has been available to Twitter since last summer. It speaks volumes that this was the first time we've seen it. I have no doubt the decision followed a lengthy debate regarding the policy risks that will result from the tyrannical fallout.

That should not be the case. That hesitation, that dilemma, goes against literally everything Section 230 was enacted for. We wanted Internet services to moderate, to hold users (ESPECIALLY POLITICIANS) accountable, to fact check, to go the extra mile, and yet they can't.

Because the moment they do, the one time they try it, politicians like @HawleyMO cry "censorship," and threaten crippling regulation. So, what's the point? Thanks to this administration, Internet companies are forced to play a losing game.

If they don't moderate, they're not doing enough - not "nerding hard" enough. But if they do moderate, it's "censorship," and they do it at the risk of losing Section 230, a law that assures their very existence.

So they do nothing. The best move is not to play.

Or worse, they cut breaks to people who desperately need to be checked the most. So if you're angry about inconsistency, know that their hands are tied in this political nightmare of a chess game created by this administration and redirect your anger accordingly.

Trust me, this is probably the first, and last time Twitter, and any other Internet company for that matter will use a fact-checking tool or experiment with creative ways to better their services. Because unfortunately, it just isn't worth it.