[jnbiche]

> We shouldn't be looking at a state-sponsored genocide and then claiming that "if only Facebook had more control over public discourse then we'd be able to solve this problem".

The genocide in Myanmar has both state-sponsored and spontaneous characteristics. Facebook can and should help with the latter, if it's going to allow folks to pass around pro-genocide messaging using the site.

In the end, I advocate for everyone to abandon all large-scale, centralized, corporate social media, but given how unrealistic this goal is at present, my next hope is for the large social media companies to assume more responsibility for their actions. The same standards that we've traditionally held all media companies to.

[lulmerchant]

But why is propaganda your preferred option over traditional content moderation? I doubt many people would considering it controversial to censor calls to violence. However when you start to focus on "hate speech" (which is where this line of reasoning will take you) and add propaganda to your moderation toolkit, then you start to cross the line into full blown dystopia territory.

Again, this may be a more compelling example of how you might define "hate speech". But if you think facebook has a responsibility to start moderating speech based on its perceived "hatefulness", then you're still going to end up at the same destination, where genuine public discourse is gradually replaced with corporate approved discourse.

[ghostbrainalpha]

You think 'content moderation' is less dystopian than 'propoganda'....

I think you are hearing something I didn't say.

I'm just talking about promoting some TED Talks. Making sure everyone can name at least 1 good Muslim. Maybe trying to raise the profile of the people who should be winning the Nobel Peace prize.

If someone is IN a hate group. I would like them to have some limited exposure to the views of the other side. I don't think that's propaganda.

I think 'content moderation' has a much higher potential for abuse, and a nightmare future.