zlacker

>>southe+(OP)
When the platforms starting censoring during the pandemic and last election cycle I remember saying they better get it right 100% of the time because the moment they get it wrong their credibility is shot. Hear we are.

Censorship, beyond what’s required by law, is doomed to fail.

>>chasd0+u8
I still remember that so many people cheered when legitimate doctors and scientists were banned from Twitter or Facebook, just for questioning either the lockdown or the effectiveness or risks of the vaccines. The doctors may not be correct, but shouldn't we allow people to question science? Our government can do what it does because the people embolden them.

>>hintym+QI
The challenge is trying to determine who’s legitimately trying to question the science vs who’s a crank.

>>iamacy+aP
If censorship is too "challenging" to do right then maybe you should knock it off.

>>lupusr+JQ
Censorship is something governments do. What you're discussing is a business decision Facebook made. They deemed it to be in the best interests of their shareholders not to amplify those peoples opinions. Zuck now regrets that decision, but it was still his decision.

>>steven+vV
It was a business decision made at the direction of the government.

>>philwe+J51
You might be right.

The article says they were "pressured", it doesn't seem to to say how that pressure was applied. To me, it reads as though compliance was not mandated, just requested. Without more info, I suppose it could be taken either way.

>>steven+T61
Any request from the government can be characterized as pressure.

>>philwe+a71
Further, there is already precedent that this is in fact, a first amendment violation.

The Biden Harris government is guilty of censorship via a third party.

>>SV_Bub+Fg1
If Zuck has a real problem with that, he can sue (as per the SCOTUS ruling on standing vis-a-vis First Amendment protections against government coercion).

He isn't suing, and it's up to the rest of us to make our decisions based on how we feel about that.