[typenil]

Ah yes. Let's have Facebook be the arbiter of truth; after all, their behavior so far is nothing short of the pinnacle of ethics, wisdom, and transparency.

Let's not worry about how that could backfire at all or the countless times that the "correct" opinion has turned out to be wrong. The truth is too flimsy to stand on its own. We must protect our inferiors from wrongthink.

[neogodless]

As long as Facebook is such a large part of how a large number of people interact with each other and share information, the power or risk of their power is great.

So perhaps the question is - where is the greater risk? That they merely facilitate the spread of misinformation as a neutral party, or that they take a opinionated stance to reduce the spread of misinformation, but hold the power to bias that filter?

I don't like either option, but I also don't see the multitudes of individuals choosing to largely choose an alternative for their interactions any time soon either. An ideal for me would be a much more decentralized internet, but there are lots of initiatives to make that happen that are arguably much less successful than Facebook's grasp on the power it holds.