Not too long ago. I think the Pandora's box is that the social media companies really had a choice of two universes:

* A world where they weren't the arbiters of truthiness, and were a place that supported 'free speech'.

* A world where they decide what posts to show, and it's their job to moderate the platform.

The decision to take the second approach is actually a pretty recent development. These companies can no longer hide behind the 'we are just a platform for free speech' line of thinking, because they have now decided that's not what they are about.

What defines social media company? You're using social media right now. I'm sure you would expect basic protections.

When I’m referring to “these companies” I’m specifically talking about the ones in this news article - namely Fb/Insta/Twitter. Very recently FBs position was that their platform shouldn’t be filtering ‘fake news’ because they are a communication platform rather than a media company.

Clearly different sites will choose a different position on filter vs free speech.

Filtering / moderation has usually been applied to “forums” (of which I would lump HN with) rather than “social graph websites” where posts are typically shared between friends and followers.

> I'm sure you would expect basic protections.

Actually I don’t to be honest! I think free speech is generally the best policy. I do think reform is required though in how posts (and advertisements) are displayed and ranked on social feeds though for instance.