Safety, expression, accessibility, and privacy may conflict. Human oversight helps only when reviewers have authority and adequate information. Ask who sets acceptable errors, whether people can correct their records, and which costs are borne by those with the least capacity to appeal. A philosophical assessment does not substitute for performance evidence.
Suppose an invented platform mistakenly restricts an account used for essential community support. Compare a clear notice and prompt appeal with an unexplained restriction that no reviewer can reverse. Both systems might have similar overall accuracy, yet one gives the affected person a more usable route to correction. Evaluating safety therefore includes institutional responsiveness and participation. A rule’s justification should also address the needs of people who bear its predictable errors, rather than only its aggregate success.