[Natsu]

> How is it fundamentally dubious?

It's fine to have a trusted organization to make decisions. It's not fine to place that organization above all criticism.

I think their statistical methods are suspect and likely wrong. I don't think they should be censored and the act of censoring them is actively harmful if you don't want people taken in by misinformation, then we need to actively produce good information. There is not and cannot be some way to absolve a free society of that burden. Censorship only helps to convince people that you know you're wrong and you're hiding from criticism. This is especially bad when you're right.

[em-bee]

having an independent organization does not imply being above criticism. even the government is not above criticism. what matters is how likely it is that the criticism will actually result in a change if there was a wrong decision made.

as it stands, google is already above all criticism because they are to big to be approached by any individual wronged by their decisions. an independent organization would be much more approachable, even if that approach ends up being a lawsuit.

[Natsu]

> having an independent organization does not imply being above criticism

It will be if we have no problem deplatforming all criticism.