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
Moderation is an expression of free speech. Coerced speech is not free speech.

>>krapp+97
Moderation exists as a form of farce to free speech.

>>Timber+7e
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ free speech is free speech even when you don't like the way it's used. Your right to say what you want doesn't supersede my right not to grant you a platform or even give you the time of day. Even Ben Franklin "moderated" the content of his newspaper. He didn't feel that free speech obligated him to print anything he was given. So this isn't a radical new concept.

Freedom of speech and freedom from speech are two sides of the same coin, just as freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. Moderation isn't a violation of free speech, nor is it a farce. It's free speech being exercised as it was intended.

>>krapp+nc2
You are conflating editorial rights with some form of free speech.

Free speech doesn't require a platform to work nor any intermediary. It is a boundless idea.

>>Timber+qY2
"Editorial rights" are free speech, they're one and the same.

Nowhere in my comment did I claim free speech requires a platform or an intermediary, they happen to be relevant in the context of the discussion we're having, just as television would be relevant to a discussion of free speech in broadcasting. Free speech doesn't require telecommunications infrastructure, yet it still applies, and broadcasters (even of public access stations) have the right to refuse to air content they don't want to.

You're the one putting limits on free speech despite also calling it a boundless idea.