[mcph]

Ay carumba. Like many who have been posting about this, I really struggle with his attitude here.

I frequently have a knee-jerk emotional response to Zuck's commentary on this topic, but even taking a step back and assessing logically I have a fairly critical take:

1) If a founder is going to oppose corporate arbitration of "truth" of content on the basis that the venue for that content is a platform, then it's essential that the same policies be uniformly applied across the platform itself. If policies aren't uniform, then the venue isn't really a platform. But Facebook routinely arbitrates content on the basis of "accuracy" or "realness" to progress the business: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vietnam-facebook-exclusiv.... Why should policies be different domestically?

2) His reference to "private companies" and the inference that such companies shouldn't arbitrate content because they're private implies that public companies, by nature of being public, are somehow better equipped to arbitrate content (because the market can then respond to their arbitration through the stock price?). That attitude draws a logical relationship between share price and "rightness" that rubs me the wrong way.

I think I have to reserve judgment until the entire interview is released, since this is a snippet cut to hype the segment.