People criticize Facebook (and others) about doing too little about Russian and other propaganda. But if we want to think about why FB does that, we should stud

People criticize Facebook (and others) about doing too little about Russian and other propaganda. But if we want to think about why FB does that, we should study the image in the mirror. The same people are highly active and effective on HN. Every discussion of Russia or China is dominated by the standard propaganda talking points: 'there's no evidence of X', for any X; and 'the U.S. does it too'.[0] As a result, on certain issues HN discussions are propaganda (expressed civilly, to stay within the rules) and no substantive discussion takes place on probably the most important issue in the history of the IT industry. The purpose of propaganda is exactly that - not to persuade but to paralyze. HN's main response, AFAICT, is to ban users from saying that any comment fits the propaganda profile; this rule perversely protects the propagandists and it shuts down people who oppose them and want substantive discussion, all in the name of keeping things 'civil'. It's capitulation to the power of the propagandists - they won; just cede them the ground in order to avoid the unpleasantness of a fight. Again, the outcome is propaganda expressed civilly and no substantive discussion (and the discussion that exists is boring, meaningless, and endlessly repetitive). I'm not saying it's an easy problem; I'm saying we should look in the mirror in order to understand Facebook. [0] For example, currently there are 4 top-level comments in this discussion, all of which fit that profile. EDIT: Some minor edits