> During that interval, something might happen. The user might receive a warning that a factual claim in her post had been disputed by leading fact-checkers. N

> During that interval, something might happen. The user might receive a warning that a factual claim in her post had been disputed by leading fact-checkers. Nope, nope, nope. And therein lies the problem. I'm all for time delays to give people time to delete/edit things they wish they hadn't said. Or even the ability to pause your access to social media if you think it's starting to become a problem. But that is self censorship. What this article proposes is not. As soon as you start introducing information arbiters onto what should be a public platform you have a problem. Facebook is not a news station where it can decide what to publish - its scale is now too big for that. > But muh private company Sure, it's a private company. Most utilities are owned by private companies. The sooner the Internet is classed as a utility the better. Social media is not a newspaper that can publish what it chooses, or a radio station, or any other media outlet. It is a platform for users to self-censor, self-publish, and share what they like. Should be give users tools to make self-censorship and self-control over their usage patterns? Absolutely. Should be give technology monopolies the power to decide what we see and read? Absolutely not.