Part of this is a clear stab at plain adulthood - trying to define "harmful content" is just being patronizing. An adult in the eyes of law is someone responsib

Part of this is a clear stab at plain adulthood - trying to define "harmful content" is just being patronizing. An adult in the eyes of law is someone responsible for their own mind. Would trying to convince people of the existence of a god in the absence of whatever form of evidence deemed necessary to do that count as "harmful content"? In a democracy, you want the thinking at the top to reflect the thinking at the bottom - I.e. the adults of a country must be the ones making the rules. What that thinking must be must not be up to those in power to decide .. unless people want that. This has so many tangled loops that no single programmer or one trained in logic is equipped with the skills to provide good "solutions" with full understanding of long term consequences. A good book to read about the possible cognitive failures of highly "educated" people is "The logic of failure" by Dietrich Dorner. In the case of FB, I think the illusory privacy of a personal network combined with the ability to centrally target these personal networks from the outside has been a mixing of gunpowder and fire. Will FB stop all targeted ads during an election? Also, can we have less ad hominem attacks on Mark here please? It is harmful content for the mind, detracts from discussing the points he makes charitably, and unfairly spreads bias against him. (Ha!)