Content moderation typically combines the efforts of human moderators and machine learning models. However, these systems often rely on data where significant disagreement occurs during moderation, reflecting the subjective nature of toxicity perception. Rather than dismissing this disagreement as noise, we interpret it as a valuable signal that highlights the inherent ambiguity of the content,an insight missed when only the majority label is considered. In this work, we introduce a novel content moderation framework that emphasizes the importance of capturing annotation disagreement. Our approach uses multitask learning, where toxicity classification serves as the primary task and annotation disagreement is addressed as an auxiliary task. Additionally, we leverage uncertainty estimation techniques, specifically Conformal Prediction, to account for both the ambiguity in comment annotations and the model's inherent uncertainty in predicting toxicity and disagreement.The framework also allows moderators to adjust thresholds for annotation disagreement, offering flexibility in determining when ambiguity should trigger a review. We demonstrate that our joint approach enhances model performance, calibration, and uncertainty estimation, while offering greater parameter efficiency and improving the review process in comparison to single-task methods.