The problem is relying on FB as the arbiter of truth. Ideas that sounded insane a few weeks back, and might have been censored for the sake of the confused masses, like the possibility the virus escaped from a bio-lab or that masks really help, are now respectable. FB, Google, Twitter, etc, will, by default, protect the status quo, the safe, consensual views, and censor anything else. This is very dangerous.

This isn't a first amendment problem. This is what an antitrust problem looks like in the information age.

Privately-run communication channels have always been arbiters of truth. Fanzines and newsletters chose what to publish. The town supermarket chose what flyers it would allow on its bulletin board. The local book store chose what books and magazines it would sell. Social clubs imposed standards on their membership. And this has always been (at least arguably) both their right and their duty.

The problem is not that Facebook does this. Unless and until they seek some form of common carrier status, they continue to retain the same curatorial rights as pretty much any other private organization that isn't a telecom. The problem is that the town bookstore is gone, the town grocery store no longer has a bulletin board, the Masonic temple and the Elks club have been converted to condos, and we have generally allowed the available media for disseminating information to consolidate into a worldwide oligarchy, with Facebook as its most powerful member. The problem is that my mom gets almost all her information about the outside world, including what's happening in her local community, from Facebook, and I honestly don't know where else she can go.

And that's a problem even if Facebook doesn't try to actively arbitrate truth, because you'd still have all the other problems: The tying of access to information to an abusive monetization policy. The tying of most opportunities for community engagement to an abusive monetization policy. The single, easy target for astroturfing and political manipulation. The way that lies and misinformation generally have to be left to spread like wildfire because you can't do anything about it without people complaining about free speech.

Yes, you have it exactly. Facebook is used as if it was a the utility for information dissemination but it is run as a publisher with editorial license to suppress and boost whatever it wants. This is a new and unholy combination that should be explicitly considered in the law.

Best comment in this whole thread. While people war over the morality of Facebook Inc. banning speech is disfavors from it's own platform, most people aren't addressing the fact that Facebook shouldn't hold such a market position in the first place.

If you're treating FB as the arbiter of truth, that's a you problem.

The internet allows a wealth of information, and you should not trust FB as the arbiter of information anymore than you should absolutely-without-question trust Washington Post, Buzzfeed News or the freaking Daily Stormer.

FB 'censoring' some ridiculously unscientific and dangerous information, like COVID19 disinformation, doesn't completely hide that. You can still find it out there, but you have to look for it.

I would agree it opens up a door. You censor one thing, you think it might be worth censoring another thing and so on. But 'slippery slope' is a logical fallacy for a reason, and this disinformation is an inherently difficult problem, we can't just look to easy answers like "don't allow censorship."

Like the physical epidemic, there will be false positives and false negatives. The idea that masks would help was never ludicrous, but it was disreccomended for bad reasons. The "virus escaped from a bio-lab" theory is still rather lacking in evidence, which may be very hard to find, but that doesn't actually affect how to treat it. The "virus is spread by 5G" is both wrong and getting masts burnt down. The "virus is a hoax" is extremely likely to get a lot of people killed.

(Does anyone have a definitive "masks will not help" statement from the WHO? Rather than a "masks should not be worn" one)

The point is that FB has a disproportionate influence over speech and it should not be trusted with that sort of power (no one should really, but least of all an unelected, unaccountable, for-profit organization).

Always remember that "the NSA is spying on everybody" was "conspiracy stuff" too. Right until it wasn't.

And regarding Corona: Sweden never introduced a quarantine, and they seem to be in good shape compared to others. Not saying I agree with that policy, because I don't. But the topic isn't as "black and white" as it appears.

Here in Germany, as of today, many of the already few restrictions where lifted as well.

Just pointing out to you and people replying that you guys have already degenerated into just the sort of data-point-cherry-picking-with-no-comprehensive-knowledge-base debate that HN User markbnj was talking about.

We don't have the data was markbnj's point. (I'd go even further and say most of the people on HN don't even know what data would be good to have, and wouldn't have the capacity to comprehend the full meaning of those datasets even if we did have them.) He's also correct when he posits the very strong likelihood that the people who do have the data and the capacity for actionable understanding thereof, don't spend their days on trivialities like posting to HN right now.

He's right, they are busy. They're doing the real work of extricating us from this situation and they need a bit of space. Adding more pressure on them right now is not necessarily going to help. In tech terms, it's like working on a giant software release with features that have never before been implemented, (coronavirus), and telling your boss, (the people), you're not sure you can hit the release date 4 weeks from now.

Then your boss decides to help you by only requiring you implement the most difficult features, and moving the release date up to friday.

Could you tell me what "data cherry picking" I did?

> Here in Germany, as of today, many of the already few restrictions where lifted as well.

This is a misleading way to phrase (or perceive) it. Yes, most shops are open again under strict limitations. No restaurants, bars, churches, stadia, theaters, big shopping malls etc., even in the most permissive state (NRW). No gatherings even in private. At the same time, more and more German states are requiring citizens to wear masks for shopping and transportation. Travel within the country is subject to limitations. A few schools will now open to conduct final exams, but most schools and especially kindergartens will remain shut for months. With the R0 still close to 1 anything else would be madness.

So what was "misleading" about it? Compared to Spain or Italy, the limitations were fewer. And of those, many have now been lifted.

Not sure why you felt the need to call it "misleading".

Sweden has considerably more total deaths and deaths per capita than their neighbours Norway and Denmark.

Sweden is currently seeing an increase in both confirmed cases and deaths.

The only reason things aren't worse in Sweden is that they've implemented a mild form of lockdown. There's a lot of debate in Sweden about their approach, and plenty of people think they need to be on tighter lockdowns.

The tally is not properly done yet.

There is still great difference in how deaths are counted between countries. For instance, Italy mostly counted dead at hospitals. In Sweden, if someone dies, it's up to the doctor in charge to call for a post mortem test or not. There has been quite a lot testing in homes for the elderly.

What all of this means, is that it's very difficult to compare between countries. I think it will be much clearer in retrospect, but maybe not even then.

And this mild lockdown is the point - no tracking of citizens with apps, no quarantine orders, no Police and Military (Finland!!) or closed roads. People are changing their behaviour without all of that. The politicians in charge are worried that a hard lockdown will create fatigue - and they want us to be able to keep up mitigations for a long time, because the virus may be with us for a long time.

Sweden is still too early to call but my money is on the pandemic.

Here's the stats today for some countries including Sweden

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/new-covid-deaths-per-mill...

They seem to be doing better than average.

Funny, I just heard today that Oktoberfest was going to be cancelled. That's hardly a back to normal situation.

Germany is one of the few countries that has managed to do test+trace well enough to contain outbreaks. It's definitely a model to be copied .. but you have to get the testing in place first!

And yet shops up to 800sqm are open again and the shopping street in in front of me apartment (in a larger German city) is crowded.

And no, we didn't contain the outbreak. But we have 20,000 ICU beds. Unlike France, Italy or Spain, who only have about 5000 each.

While in those countries, people could not be treated for lack of capacity, here in Germany we still have about 50% free ICU beds (as of two days ago, according to the health ministry).

That's why we have low mortality, while still having a pretty large number of infected people.