zlacker

>>southe+(OP)
It is sometimes easy to say in retrospect we shouldn’t have demoted the story. But they did and they trusted the US Administration.

Facebook is international. Do they allow all speech even that which could be viewed as propaganda in the US?

Who makes the ultimate call on whether it be Russian disinformation or COVID-19?

We have tried many different moderation models and not all of them work.

If we try the Reddit route, then we could have incredible bias in moderated communities.

What about fitting the StackOverflow model to social media?

Another route is how X provides for the Community Notes feature. Would that have worked? Is Community Notes still susceptible to the same bias?

>>firest+H2
The shocking answer to this moderation question is not what most people want i.e free speech.

>>Timber+P3
Most people don’t want free speech, and no country has free speech anyway.

The question is what limits are made.

>>chgs+S6
The United States has free speech by all but the most extreme definitions. The 1st Amendment is well-tested and supported by the courts. Sometimes, like in Citizens United, to an extremely flexible definition of speech (political campaign donations by corporations.)

>>tyre+D7
The right to speak, but not the right to be heard.

That costs money.

Speak in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and you can be placed in a "free speech zone" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

Let others say the wrong thing on your platform, be it advocating against a narrative or revealing evidence of war crimes, and you can be tortured.

>>mandma+j8
> The right to speak, but not the right to be heard

Right to be heard implies a coercion to be heard. That’s the paradox of free speech.

>>JumpCr+sh
We're not talking about forcing people's eyes open to watch content, à la 'Clockwork Orange'.

It's not hard to imagine social media discussion being made a lot more meritocratic, and a lot less censorious.

Vital scientific perspectives on topics that affect literally billions of people ought not be secretly censored for political purposes by non-scientists. That isn't really a huge demand; it's pretty basic freedom and science and health stuff.