Make social media sites over a certain size common carriers

What happens if that “common carrier” can no longer operate — will the government take it over, or will it be allowed to disappear and take everything on the site with it? Under what objective, one-size-fits-all guidelines would you determine the exact “size” at which a social interaction network becomes “big enough” to become a common carrier?

require a court order to ban someone

The United States immigration system is at something of a standstill because it has too few courts/judges/etc. to handle the number of immigration cases in the backlog. For what reason should regular courts be shoved into a similar quagmire by SINs looking to ban individuals from the service — and, by extension, the individuals in question appealing any such ruling to the highest possible court?

The problem isn’t scale, but subjectivity that causes a bias in how offenses are defined

Scale and bias are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have a massively-scaled system that runs on “objective” guidelines without running into issues such as the Scunthorpe Problem, and you cannot inject subjective bias into the system without being called out for missing “offensive” posts that would likely be “caught” under “objective” guidelines. Content moderation on systems as large as Twitter will always be a tightrope that cannot be walked on fully balanced; to expect otherwise is to expect a miracle from God.

That a view is "abhorrent" doesn’t justify "flagging["]

If people on a specific service do not want a specific “abhorrent” view associated with the service (and themselves by loose proxy), that is a perfectly reasonable justification for flagging said view. The same goes for the service’s owners and operators. A White supremacist forum has every right to flag, delete, and ban someone who posts pro-Black Lives Matter propaganda as much as a BLM forum has every right to do the same in re: White supremacist propaganda. Saying one can do it, but not the other, flies in the face of both the First Amendment’s protection of associations and Section 230’s protection of moderation.

this puts too much power in the hands of the censors, who gain total control over the flow of information

Twitter has control over the flow of information on Twitter. It cannot (and should not) control the flow of information on Breitbart, InfoWars, or Stormfront — and by the same token, neither of those three sites should have the right to control whether Twitter will host speech from those sites. If someone is “censored” on one platform, that sucks for them; they should go seek out a platform that will not censor them, or perhaps make their own. No one has a right to force a platform into hosting speech.

Is it so horrific a view to say "sex work" shouldn’t be legal that that too has to be censored?

Censored? No. Mocked? Absolutely. (Besides: Sex work should be decriminalized, not legalized.) Criticism is not censorship, by the way; if you cannot handle your views being mocked, that is a problem only you can solve.

How about the feminists who refuse to be lumped in with transgendered "women?"

They can all go find a nice, lovely echo chamber in which to share their transmisia. Everyone else can get along fine without them.

Scale is not the problem, but consistency within a subjective framework is.

I covered this already.

Banning all uses of the F-word is fine, but banning unpopular speech is exactly what the Founding Fathers warned against.

The funny thing about this is, depending on who you ask and which infamous “F word” you mean, one or both of them could constitute “unpopular speech”. That you would consider banning all uses of either word (or both words) as “fine” but decry banning “unpopular speech” as an affront to the Founding Fathers is hilariously hypocritical.

The most intelligent conservative viewpoints never see the light of day because either they are censored

If “the most intelligent conservative viewpoints” cannot be distinguished from bigotry and hatred of any and all kinds, perhaps the problem lies with those viewpoints, not with the people who find them distasteful. (Last I checked, even Laura Ingraham had to help one of her guests backpedal after he used the phrase “light in the loafers” to imply that Beto O’Rourke is gay.)

even if one disagrees, it is the potential for bias which is what makes it wrong to censor people

Censoring people from speaking is not as simple as kicking them off Twitter or Instagram. Using platforms such as those is a privilege, not a right; the same goes for having an audience. No conservative, liberal, right-winger, leftist, socialist, communist, Marxist, Trumpist, or Barbra Streisand fan can force a platform to host their speech or give them an audience. To say otherwise is to believe the First Amendment no longer applies to the Internet…and that is an outcome I do not think even you would want.

If I say women are bad with money, that’s "misogyny," but if CNBC says women are more rational investors, that’s "girl power."

Both are stereotypes, and all stereotypes are bullshit. But one is a “negative” stereotype rooted in a desire to tear women down, while the other is a “positive” stereotype rooted in a desire to see women built up.

It’s not the enforcement that is the problem, but the entire framework.

And until someone can come up with a framework that creates a perfectly objective system where no one can be dinged for a “false positive” — where a system can take context into account without any mistakes or misfires — the framework will always be as flawed and fallible as you or I. We live in an imperfect world and imperfect societies with imperfect people; expecting anything even close to perfection in online content moderation from those circumstances is no better than expecting world peace.