[bassman9000]

And who decides what's filtered? Unless it's the judicial system, don't want it.

If you have 2 opposing views, and one is delayed long enough, you've effectively censored it, in favor of the other.

Which is exactly what's going to happen. Once the dissenting view "passes filter", the news cycle is over, the unfiltered view remains in everyone's retinas, the filtered one ignored, despite any merits it may have.

This is just preparing the field for stronger, more arbitrary censorship.

[mempko]

Who is deciding which content is promoted now on social media? An unaccountable algorithm. Isn't this just the flip side of the censorship coin? Except now the truth is being censored and lies are being promoted because it's financially better for the publisher.

Wouldn't the most appropriate legal response to this be not allow social media companies to have any sort of recommendation algorithm and force them to have feeds that are linear in time of people who you follow?

[bassman9000]

The appropriate response would be to take them to justice if law was broken, and for you not to use the platforms if you don't want to, as a free citizen.

The problem with the mixed approach is that these platforms get the official recognition they don't deserve, and the private censors we don't need or want.