[JumpCrisscross]

> We require the dogmatic, bureaucratic oversight of speech to create harmony

This is an open, legitimate debate. It's complicated with Facebook due to its lack of competition.

Companies moderating speech on their services is time tested and likely necessary. If the market presents a diversity of services, no one system of moderation gets a stranglehold on public discourse.

Facebook, however, is dominant. As a result, its decisions approach the breadth of government censorship. That's a fundamental disconnect they're trying to paper over.

[paulddraper]

> It's complicated with Facebook due to its lack of competition.

Twitter, Reddit, Snapshat, Marco Polo...lots of competition in the social media space.

Is there a successful FB clone, a la Google+? No there is not. That does not mean FB somehow owns social media.

[banads]

>Companies moderating speech on their services is time tested

Not at FBs scale

[unearthed]

> Companies moderating speech on their services is time tested and likely necessary.

Here's the thought experiment validating what Im claiming about driving out dissenting views:

Where do the ideas that are pushed out of facebook go?

Do you think they just go away? Absolutely not.

The problems is zuck is culturally beholden to his droves of socially 'woke' employees. Nor does Zuck strike anyone asa persona strong enough to do anything other than 'tow the line' of that narrative.

Socially, hes a lap-dog.

Which is why this 'Supreme Court' is being established. Homeboy cant shoulder the weight (in the court of public-opinion) of the moral judgements being made, so hes throwing $130 million so someone else's name sits at the top of that list.

IMO the only thing this is doing is creating monsters + pushing the work of social integration down the line. Its a bad short-term strategy.

Atop the list of problems here is that facebook loses oversight/engagement w the most dangerous of outside thought-leaders. Inadvertently, putting themselves in the dark.