I don't believe it's anywhere close to half who believe the election was fraudulent. It's widely reported and talked about just like other fringe ideas, but it's surely not half of Americans who think that.

I believe the current belief is that 50% of Republicans believe it. So if you extrapolate to the American Population you would be looking at about 50 million Americans who believe the election was stolen.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/24/republicans-...

So that's roughly 50 million / 331 million or 15.1%. Nothing close to 50%.

> Facebook's role in amplifying content that is at best misleading and at worst outright falsehoods

That's nothing but an excuse.

I'm not 100% sure I understand your point, but I take it to mean that you're saying that Facebook's role is just an excuse to ban content I (or some groups) don't like?

If there was a true marketplace of ideas, everyone would have an equal playing field to build their own audiences, sway people to their positions, debate and discuss. But that's not how facebook works - engagement drives eyeballs, eyeballs drive revenue, and so Facebook optimizes for engagement, which itself happens to optimize for the most extreme and dramatic and horrifying positions. "Were the COVID vaccines hurried through approvals too fast?" doesn't drive as much engagement as "Covid vaccines are killing thousands, data shows".

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't super clear there. I meant to emphasize the characterization of the content: "at best misleading and at worst outright falsehoods".

Calling it that makes it easy to say it should be banned - but remember that the wuhan lab leak hypothesis was characterized exactly the same way. And that turned out to be acknowledged as plausible and even likely. If you're pro-censorship here, then you're in favor of banning speech about things that could be true and important.

Oh, sure, I think the problems in these kinds of discussions is that each reader has their own mental picture of the type of content that is being described, which colors the discussion. I think the wuhan lab leak hypothesis is a good example - I don't think anyone serious or in a position of power was arguing that the statement, "It is possible that COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak" should be banned or restricted. Some people said that was hasty or lacking evidnce, that's different, that's people's opinion about an opinion.

But there were also people saying, "china intentionally released covid to kill americans" and calling it "the china flu" and encouraging aggression towards china. That's obviously much more inflammatory.

I'm not even arguing THAT should necessarily qualify as an outright falsehood (though I don't think it's a helpful way to have a conversation about a complex subject). I'm talking about, "Covid vaccines are killing thousands, so you shouldn't take one". Or, "the election was stolen from donald trump".

I'm also not really arguing for censorship here - I'm just arguing that Facebook is a net negative in that they algorithmically optimize for the most inflammatory, most aggressive content, with the side effects that it amplifies the least true content.

> I don't think anyone serious or in a position of power was arguing that the statement, "It is possible that COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak" should be banned or restricted.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/facebook-lifts-ban-on-w...

> "The social media giant banned any content that asserted COVID-19 was man-made or manufactured in February but told Politico the decision has now been reversed."

There was no distinction made between 'lab leak' and 'intentional leak' when censoring the conversation. To me, it's a great example of why censorship of these things should be nipped in the bud. There's plenty more examples if you ddg "lab leak theory".