A lot of the comments here seem to be missing the point of the article. Hate speech wouldn't be removed, it would just require an additional click or two to tak

A lot of the comments here seem to be missing the point of the article. Hate speech wouldn't be removed, it would just require an additional click or two to take a look at it. I like this because it gives the user a choice. Lets say you are a black man who just wants to scroll through Facebook at the end of the day to see what your friends are up to, without having to see racist comments that friends of friends have left. You would see the warnings that hate speech might exist behind the filter, and, since you are trying to relax at the end of the day, you could make the conscious decision that looking at that stuff wouldn't be good for you. But then, some other time, like maybe early the next day, you could make the conscious decision to click through to see what the person said, and tell them off, or, if the content was misflagged, let the algorithm know. The current state is that we remove the content completely and pretend like people aren't racist/sexist/phobic, or we leave the content up and allow people to get dragged into flamewars at all hours of the day. This new proposed tech would be akin to HN's option to "showdead," except with more context about what you're opting into potentially seeing.