Many dissenters including investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald agree with my assessment [1] that this is not an attempt to weaken facebook, but to commandeer its power to censor.

In addition to how I've shown her call to censor "hate speech" is likely a call to censor viewpoint opponents to critical social justice, whom she associate herself with corroborate this interpretation.

For instance her laywer, Andrew P. Bakaj[2], is an attorney and former intelligence officer with the CIA. He was the principal attorney representing the whistleblower who filed the initial complaint that led to the launch of multiple investigations by the United States Congress into the Trump–Ukraine scandal, the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, and, ultimately, the first Impeachment of Donald Trump.

Neither of these facts are the hallmarks of a moderate person that seek measured actions for the best of viewpoint diversity and civilized dialogue.

[1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/democrats-and-media-do-not-... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_P._Bakaj

Glenn’s argument is a slippery slope fallacy, and you’ve thrown in some guilt by partisan association in there too. Simply stopping amplifying content for purely engagement purposes would be a great step in the right direction, for any side. IMO a reasonable goal for what ails Facebook is not to increase moderation, but to reduce polarization by stopping incentivizing people from being polarizing.

She proposes a ministry for regulating tech which means there will be a permanent line between Washington and large social media companies. That is the factual result of what is proposed and this has been a problem in the past. Political manipulation of content institutionalized. This is a horrible approach by any objective meassure and it would obviously also institutionalize Facebook.

Greenwalds argument isn't a slippery slope fallacy but that is off topic and of no relevance.

I don’t see where that’s what she proposed, I only saw forcing transparency - maybe you can fill in the blank there?

The suggestions she proposed are at the end of the article.

edit: Under "An array of possible next steps"

No, the primary argument I made was around the ideology with which she to my estimation seek to apply censorship. If she and whom she ally with succeed there will be further asymmetry in what viewpoints are censored. That is also Glenn's concern. Her associations and donations are just corroborative facts.

If people find a friend to be polarizing and rude they can just unfollow them, that is their business and choice.

> IMO a reasonable goal for what ails Facebook is not to increase moderation, but to reduce polarization by stopping incentivizing people

This is an interesting discussion. How do you see facebook doing this without moderation?

So far Facebook and Twitter algorithmic approaches, e.g. shadowbanning and flagging, are often applied through moderation with an ideological tilt. The people programming and running the systems are after all people as well.