Now that he’s back on Twitter, neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin wants somebody to explain the rules.

Anglin, the founder of an infamous neo-Nazi website, was reinstated Thursday, one of many previously banned users to benefit from an amnesty granted by Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk. The next day, Musk banished Ye, the rapper formerly known as Kanye West, after he posted a swastika with a Star of David in it.

“That’s cool,” Anglin tweeted Friday. “I mean, whatever the rules are, people will follow them. We just need to know what the rules are.”

Ask Musk. Since the world’s richest man paid $44 billion for Twitter, the platform has struggled to define its rules for misinformation and hate speech, issued conflicting and contradictory announcements, and failed to full address what researchers say is a troubling rise in hate speech.

As the ” chief twit “ may be learning, running a global platform with nearly 240 million active daily users requires more than good algorithms and often demands imperfect solutions to messy situations — tough choices that must ultimately be made by a human and are sure to displease someone.

A self-described free speech absolutist, Musk has said he wants to make Twitter a global digital town square. But he also said he wouldn’t make major decisions about content or about restoring banned accounts before setting up a ” content moderation council “ with diverse viewpoints.

He soon changed his mind after polling users on Twitter, and offered reinstatement to a long list of formerly banned users including ex-President Donald Trump, Ye, the satire site The Babylon Bee, the comedian Kathy Griffin and Anglin, the neo-Nazi.

And while Musk’s own tweets suggested he would allow all legal content on the platform, Ye’s banishment shows that’s not entirely the case. The swastika image posted by the rapper falls in the “lawful but awful” category that often bedevils content moderators, according to Eric Goldman, a technology law expert and professor at Santa Clara University law school.

While Europe has imposed rules requiring social media platforms to create policies on misinformation and hate speech, Goldman noted that in the U.S. at least, loose regulations allow Musk to run Twitter as he sees fit, despite his inconsistent approach.

“What Musk is doing with Twitter is completely permissible under U.S. law,” Goldman said.

Pressure from the EU may force Musk to lay out his policies to ensure he is complying with the new law, which takes effect next year. Last month, a senior EU official warned Musk that Twitter would have to improve its efforts to combat hate speech and misinformation; failure to comply could lead to huge fines.

In another confusing move, Twitter announced in late November that it would end its policy prohibiting COVID-19 misinformation. Days later, it posted an update claiming that “None of our policies have changed.”

On Friday, Musk revealed what he said was the inside story of Twitter’s decision in 2020 to limit the spread of a New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Twitter initially blocked links to the story on its platform, citing concerns that it contained material obtained through computer hacking. That decision was reversed after it was criticized by then-Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. Facebook also took actions to limit the story’s spread.

The information revealed by Musk included Twitter’s decision to delete a handful of tweets after receiving a request from Joe Biden’s campaign. The tweets included nude photos of Hunter Biden that had been shared without his consent — a violation of Twitter’s rules against revenge porn.

Instead of revealing nefarious conduct or collusion with Democrats, Musk’s revelation highlighted the kind of difficult content moderation decisions that he will now face.

“Impossible, messy and squishy decisions” are unavoidable, according to Yoel Roth, Twitter’s former head of trust and safety who resigned a few weeks into Musk’s ownership.