It's a valid question, and brings up that whole question of "Where do you draw the line?"

We've already allowed the government to define what's legal and what isn't - which obviously differ from country to country.

Now it seems private companies also want to weigh in and define their own kinds of "allowed and not allowed".

I honestly do think we're damned if we do (allow FB to censor) and we're dammed if we don't (allow FB to censor)

Mark Cuban had an interesting response. The algorithm is editorializing, even if it's driven by AI. FB either needs to show everything in chronological order, or face the burden and liability of the content it promotes. It might be a bizarre, yet moderating force to online discussion if a cottage industry of civil/personal injury lawyers pops up around FB content.

That's a tricky proposition. We all follow an algorithm whether it's computational, biological, or something else entirely. Applying best design practices is an algorithm, reaching in to your memory of certain events is an algorithm. Even writing and typing on a word processor is and relies on an algorithm. By Cuban's standard, every action of every person does would be considered editorial publishing and very likely including the platform on which he has made his statement. From arranging one's sentences, to evaluating a certain font, to choice in markup language. Where does one draw the line between presentation of information and publication? And, more importantly, what wouldn't be considered editorializing? Should all websites just turn out like the Library of Babel?

That's not really interesting as it's not at all practical. The deluge of spam will render these platforms completely devoid of value.

The spam come in from not moderating content? I think his point is to put liability on media companies for their content if they promote content, forcing them to moderate. Or, they can avoid liability by not promoting or hiding anything. Don't let them have it both ways.

He didn't, though.

I see you're unfamiliar with hypothetical questions.

Isn’t a call to violence illegal?

Murder is illegal but its illegality matters nothing to victims after the fact.

I think you missed my point. If there was a call for violence like in your hypothetical scenario, then the tweet should be removed and legal action taken. It is not covered under any free speech protections.

I think it's rather you who missed my point. Once it's out there, it's out there. They may take it down but it'll be too late.

Then you might as well not let anyone talk about anything, anywhere. What you describe sounds a lot like the movie Minority Report.

Among other things I imagine he'd point out that this is only a problem if you normalize police not doing their job. Things like this are only a problem when politicians decide they'll be more popular if they treat enforcing the laws of the land as a PR tactic instead of an obligation. The only reason rioters anywhere manage to do as much damage as they have is because every time there's a new BLM or Proud Boys rally every politician decides they'll look better if they yank the leash instead of letting the police enforce local laws.