An algorithmically sorted feed separating signal from noise will ALWAYS have to make the choice of what to show. If there are 10k stories, and the average person only scrolls through 1k stories, thats 9k stories it chooses to suppress.

There is a difference between delisting stories completely, and removing stories in private messages, but once you talk about the feed itself, the provider is going to be writing some kind of editorial engine, that prefers stories that have more engagement, while at the same time trying to not uprank trash, spam, clickbait, and other types of bs that float to the top.

Spam has already crossed the line, where near everybody, in universal agreement, is ok with their email provider blanket censoring the bulk of it.

There is nothing wrong with allowing unpleasant posts to be accompanied by a note. The issue is that too many people take hate speech masquerading as "truth" with zero context as reality, and act accordingly. That is what is not acceptable.

If I tell your neighbor that you are molesting his daughter, and he kills you, will your family find that acceptable?

If a politician tells your neighbor that you are molesting his daughter, and he kills you, will your family find that acceptable?

If that word is flagged maybe you'd still be alive because the neighbor would have some doubt as to your guilt.

That's a really extreme example, it doesn't seem to track with hate speech because in that scenario said poster is looking to not get flagged, in you scenario this operation would result in death and subsequent blow back on which is not what the poster would then want if they tried to post hate speech. By this logic the poster wants the flag because that limits any consequence on them not the other way around.

How about this, two people post the same molesting accusation. One of them has a hat that you don't like so you flag his post. The other one doesn't have that hat so they get a pass on the flag. Following what I believe to be a more clear assessment of the situation, the non-flagged other flavor of hate speech survives to do damage, the hate speech of the hat guy doesn't. This bends the narrative away from the guy with the hat and warps it around to the guy you like. Why isn't this a problem?

No one is asking for anyone or any single piece of information to be suppressed so it doesn't meet the legal standard or definition in the US to be considered censorship especially since FB is a private entity and the 1st Amendment protects you from the government. It's also why we are not seeing civil rights lawsuits against these companies and people that try fail miserably and can't even make it to trial. Read your TOS.

If you come to my website to post and I delete it, thats just me taking out the trash as I see fit. You're not being censored. No one suppressed your speech or expression. In fact you said or wrote it and faced zero repercussions and ramifications. Me saying you can can't come on my property or giving you a time out isn't your rights being infringed on.

Not allowing me to delete your post would be the literal definition of censoring MY speech and expression and the SCOTUS has already ruled on this. You can't have it both ways bud.

> "If you come to my website to post and I delete it, thats just me taking out the trash as I see fit."

Zuckerberg is taking the trash out (or not, as the case may be) as he sees fit and therefore those that have advocated this argument should logically be supporting his right to make his own choices. One wonders why they aren't?

Yeah, I really don't care what Zuckerburg does on his platform, I don't use it anyways. If he chooses to tag posts or not that's his business. I'm just saying if he does, that's not censorship by any definition.

Nobody wants them "to be the arbiters of what is allowed to be discussed". People want platforms to take responsibility for how they are used to spread misinformation. They want leaders held to the same standards as everyday users.

If pg came onto this site and started trolling people, throwing around insults, and spreading lies, what would it do to this community? And if dang responded by doing nothing?

It's so bizarre to me how common the "pro free speech" argument is on this site of all places. There is valuable and interesting discussion here precisely because it's heavily moderated. Facebook and Twitter are moderated too, the problem is they do it inconsistently. And despite Zuck's commitment to "allowing all voices to be heard", Facebook will remain moderated, or else it will turn into voat or 4chan.

> "People want platforms to take responsibility for how they are used to spread misinformation"

Define misinformation. One side thinks its opponents are spreading misinformation but they fail to see that their opponents just as fervently believe they are the ones spreading misinformation.

What will happen to your ideological group if the other side gets a majority and it's your beliefs that are declared misinformation?

These networks have all sorts of arbitrary rules. If you wanted to share your favorite porn video with your friends, that would be taken down (not fact checked, thankfully). There are also other guidelines mainly to prevent harm in the real world.

You can argue that you don’t like these rules and that everybody should be free to share their favorite videos, that people should be free to post anti vax information. There are plenty of platforms besides Facebook that you can go to (I recommend 4chan for the true freedom of speech experience). Those platforms might not be where the users are though.

What you are arguing, however, is that some people on Facebook should be exempt to the general rules of the platform and that applying rules to them in the same way it’s applied to others is censorship.

edit: typo

perhaps you could argue that the "pro-censorship crowd" is being irrational, selfish and/or myopic, but no, they don't hate democracy. you're trying (badly) to conflate two separate concepts.

No.

Today's world is vastly more complex than it was in our ancestral environment, and that makes assessing truth very hard. It's not possible for anyone to directly access all primary sources, so we have no choice but to set up some kind of division of labor in the assessment of truth. Scientific peer review is one example of such a division of labor. We trust peer reviewed publications not because peer review is flawless, but because we have to do something to triage the myriad firehoses of information that exist in today's world, and peer review is the best we've been able to come up with so far.

Handing over the arbitration of truth to unaccountable private corporations is, like peer review, far from optimal. But we have to do something or those who are out to deliberately deceive to advance their political agendas will win. It is always easier to destroy than to create, and it is easier to promulgate a well-crafted lie than the truth. Those are the facts on the ground that we as a society have to grapple with. It's a hard problem and none of the solutions that have been proposed are optimal. But that's no excuse not to try to do something. If we don't, society will descend into chaos and authoritarianism. Fact checking by social media platforms is far from optimal, but it's a hell of a lot more likely to advance democracy than survival of the fittest con man.

No.

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. It's better to train society and individuals to take what is out there and teach them how to process it than to institutionalize them to trust "experts". Even today, before you take medical decisions, you have to trust your own instincts on what is the best for you. Yeah, those so called experts, won't make the right decisions.

Handing over arbitration of truth is an extremely foolish idea. We might as well have dictatorship and let "elders" decide for us and give up on democracy. Doing _something_ is not a virtue by itself, it has to be meaningful and many times you just have to pause and do _nothing_.

You did not really show that "doing something" is better than inaction (see politician's fallacy). For example for a long time reddit was very hands-off at the global level and left moderation to the indiviual subreddits and in my opinion that worked fine for most. Sure, there were some very disagreeable ones, but you still had to deliberately enter them to see their content.

Division of labor does not necessarily mean total centralization.

I didn't say it did. All I'm saying is that advocating for it does not necessarily mean that you hate democracy.

Maybe it doesn't mean you hate democracy per say, but what you are advocating means removing the control of a vast amount of information out of people's hands and moving it to a small relatively homogeneous group with their own political will.

Which in turns looks very much authoritarian and undemocratic.

The issue being discussed is not any form of moderation though but centralized regulation of speech (i.e. censorship).

For one HN allows you to see most "deleted" content and engage with it if you choose to, unlike many other platforms. Secondly, the mods don't claim to engage in fact-checking. And downvotes are not driven by single entity. Of course that still leaves the issue that minority views could be downvoted to oblivion, but that's not in direct conflict with democracy, even if outcomes still may be suboptimal.

As for self-censoring. Yes, that can be an issue. You picked racial slurs because that makes self-censoring seem morally acceptable, you're biasing the scenario in your favor. What about protesters calling for violence against an oppressive government? That would commonly be considered a violation of "community guidelines" on social networks.

My issue with social networks is that they amplify without providing contrast. Often there's viral, in-the-moment content which is technically truthful but doesn't provide context. Getting the "yes, but ..." replies that add nuance or rebut the framing would be helpful. Distinguishing and filtering by affirmative vs. conterarguments would be helpful in controversial topics. This doesn't require fact-checking by an arbiter of truth, just a way for people to select which responses they see.