[kyriee]

How about a simpler principle: harm reduction.

Letting people be mislead about vaccines harms people, letting people get brainwashed into mistrusting the legitimacy of their institutions harms people, letting people use their platform to incite genocide harms people.

They actually have metric to measure those things, it’s just that they prefer to dial down the heat, not kill it. It’s just too good for engagement.

Don’t “both sides” death and misery. It’s not a philosophy debate.

[ehnto]

> They actually have metric to measure those things, it’s just that they prefer to dial down the heat, not kill it. It’s just too good for engagement.

To be fair they are clearly fighting a delicate balance of censorship and community moderation. It's different from say a forum of yesteryear, because a forum can have a clear set of community values that should work for everyone.

Facebook and all social media is a single platform for many communities, and so given the new role of moderator they are in the impossible position of making a set of community values that apply to all communities.

I think the reason a lot of material isn't outright banned where you or I would see obvious misinformation or hate is because of this.

[intended]

But This IS a philosophy debate. Fundamentally what is at stake here is how western society decides free speech is to be handled, and if it can be handled at all with social media.

I urge anyone here to define metrics for harm reduction that are operationable.

If you get any far with that, then tell me how you feel if the tools that will achieve these operational metrics were inverted in their purpose.

[rhizome]

You're confusing Constitutional rights with business models and editorial policies.

[gampleman]

Also in the case of Covid vaccines, the heavy handed censorship being imposed seems to make people I know more nervous about the vaccine, as it is perceived to be "pushed" by those in power.