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

Censorship, as you call it, is a requirement for any platform. It's better to call it moderation. Without it platforms would be 99% spam. I assume you support "censoring" spam so that means you support some level of moderation.

>>driver+FR
Spam is a real problem, but when your platform is doing things like disallowing linking to a NY Post article on the Hunter Biden laptop or mentioning the possibility that COVID originated from a lab-leak, then I think pretty clearly the term "censorship" is more apt than "moderation".

Also, to the extent that a platform is surfacing content based on a friend or follow model, then that itself is intrinsically sufficient moderation for the spam problem (because you can simply unfriend or unfollow spam accounts).

(Spam friend requests and follows still need to be addressed, however.)

>>dilap+9Z
Sounds like it's the FBI's credibility that is shot - imagine Facebook had done nothing and it HAD been a Russian propaganda operation ?

>>BlueTe+Q51
By this logic nobody should ever publish anything.

>>flanke+1D1
I'm pretty sure the FBI didn't came knocking discussing this comment of yours ?