I don't understand why they don't just make the "reciprocity" argument. The fact that we allow Chinese social networks in the US while they block ours doesn't pass the smell test. To me, this line of argument is easier to rally around as it's more business focused and avoids free speech/national security debates which only serve to muddy the waters
I wonder if their A/B test showed that this was somehow "solving" the "spam of spam reports" problem. It would be fairy naive but I could envision a world where they tested this out, saw fewer (but more detailed) spam reports and concluded that the prior distribution of spam reports was itself not reliable (e.g overcounted the problem).
This is obviously self-serving but seems like it may at least be a "consistent" world view where they aren't totally cynical.
Reminds me of this excerpt from an Obama interview:
> When problems reached him in the White House, he said, it was because they were unsolvable. He generally was being asked to choose between two bad options. “By definition, if it was an easily solvable problem, or even a modestly difficult but solvable problem, it would not reach me, because, by definition, somebody else would have solved it,” he said. “So the only decisions that came were the ones that were horrible and that didn’t have a good solution."