I dislike #Facebook like almost everyone on here, but you cannot supplement education with moderation. if you think Facebook moderating *all* content would actually be a net positive, get ready for the next Iraq, because the people dong the moderation will most certainly be employed by some D.C. think-tank that has a few coups on its resume.
Do you think corporate HQ at Facebook wouldn't moderate most important issues that haven't yet reached mainstream acceptance out of existence?
@MatejLach Yes, I think that it wouldn't. You have the wrong mental image of Facebook’s mission. They only care about engagement and ad revenue.
@frumble Absolutely. And since most important issues tend to be controversial when they start, they'd moderate it because it would (presumably, in their minds anyway), drive advertisers away.
I think the notion that Facebook wouldn't moderate the Civil Rights Movement if it was around in the 60s, or the Vietnam War protests etc. in order to avoid "controversy" is the wrong one.
@MatejLach Look at Nazi groups on FB, they don’t care at all. If they were banning topics, the users go somewhere else and are lost to the platform. That’s actual evidence of FB today. Only after the recent events – in which FB doesn’t want to moderate hate – some big companys make public withdrawal from FB ads, only that brings FB to slightly change its moderation course.
@frumble I agree they don't actually care, but they care about their bottom line. It should be fairly easy to ban hate groups/pages, nothing against that, that's however not what I am talking about.
I am not against moderation, I am against official "fact checking" because the fact checkers won't stop at where you'd want them to stop.
Example > :Reddit bans r/The_Donald
<most people stop reading>
These "moderators" don't stop where any one of us wants them to.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!