rotfl touché
> I'm seeing "belief" without substantiation in both of those sentences.
that's why I said "believe". my opinions about what facebook should and shouldn't be doing are simply that.. opinions.
if I were to say any of this on facebook, it's possible that I could immediately be banned, and where's the fun in that. (that's a serious question.. isn't facebook supposed to be a fun place to communicate? if we have to worry about the ban hammer, how is it either?)
Moderation should be like HN: light, but still there. If it gets too heavy, civil discourse dies. If it disappears, then the place might turn into lord of the flies. (although, I hope a place like that always exists, too.)
...Upon rereading, I realize that I'm probably implying my own preferences as universal.
> The title of this thread is 'Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”'.
> I don't believe the problem is facebook recommending anything -- the problem is facebook trying to ban certain content entirely
You say you don't believe (a), and you state that the problem is (b). I'm seeing "belief" without substantiation in both of those sentences. I'm also actively not taking username "gunapologist" as related to the merits of beliefs or statements in any way.
Finally, it's not clear to me that Facebook is a censor. I hold they have a right to promote or not promote whatever they want. Give someone a megaphone, suddenly anyone not handed a megaphone cries censor. No, just not amplified. Commercially, choosing not to promote a thing is much like a TV channel choosing not to run an ad or sponsor an event, something they choose to not do all the time.
I'd rather FB promote nothing, go back to a timeline of posts from my connections, and seems like "a problem" (one of many) is solved.