[ppbutt]

So nix free speech (and rely on unknown propietary algorithms)? I don't think that's a good idea either. Much of the time, there's more value in the comments than you could gain from an article, video, etc - as is the case here.

[themagician]

Nothing to do with limiting free speech. Quite the opposite.

Instead of showing people only content that they agree with, with counts that reinforce the legitimacy of that content, you would show people everything that is popular and let them determine for themselves what they think about it.

I’m not talking about removing the comments. I’m saying don’t show the count. If people want to read the comments they can.

[yAnonymous]

Limiting free speech may not be your intention, but it's exactly what's going to happen when you remove transparency.

We have a similar this situation in Germany right now. A private corporation designated by the government can delete Facebook posts as they see fit under the guise of hate speech. Facebook had to agree, because they'll be hit with fines if they don't.

What should be controlled by law is now in the hands of a corporation and they are quietly removing content that is clearly not illegal.

Removing transparency is a dream come true for corrupt institutions.

[MaxBarraclough]

> So nix free speech

1. It's Facebook, not the government 2. They aren't banning anything

How is this a free speech issue?

[colejohnson66]

No OP, but free speech is an ideal, unlike the first amendment which applies to the government.

[MaxBarraclough]

It's still not a free speech issue.

The question is how Facebook should order news sources/articles. They're suggesting changing their strategy. This isn't anything like censorship.