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
Call it what you like, if you can't distinguish between doctors and quacks then you shouldn't be banning people you think are quacks because you aren't qualified to do so.

>>lupusr+yg1
If i stand up a server and host a website, I get to decide who's allowed to use my server. I don't need to be "qualified", and who would decide what "qualified" means? Should the government be forcing me to host content I find objectionable?

Facebook is no different. Just bigger.

>>steven+Xs1
Nobody is saying a legal right to do so doesn't exist. Only that you shouldn't and you're a jackass if you do.

Your retreat into legality and semantics is telling.

>>lupusr+mP1
Fair enough. When you said they "shouldn't be" I took that to mean they "shouldn't be allowed to", which is different than what you said. My bad.