If they enforce some community's or culture's norms, or proactively try to avoid enabling any violations of some jurisdiction's laws, people will find things about that that outrage them, including misunderstandings, or ways that those norms aren't shared by others, or ways that they can be oppressive.
If they don't do that, other people will get outraged about how the companies are allowing or facilitating "bad stuff" which they obviously could have chosen not to allow or facilitate to the same extent.
But there might be no actual possible course of action which would avoid both forms of outrage!
And, at a large scale, false positive rates and false negative rates are usually in a trade-off, even when people supposedly agree on what is supposed to happen. (Which they also don't actually agree on.) That's especially true when companies are using software and statistics to help them make judgments, or when they're not spending billions of dollars to have decisions made by domain experts, at leisure, with rights of appeal.