And if you curate news, you likely create a propaganda section selected by individuals or a small group of individuals. It's not as if an unbiased AI hand-picks

And if you curate news, you likely create a propaganda section selected by individuals or a small group of individuals. It's not as if an unbiased AI hand-picks which stories are of factual merit and representative of the current world context. Is a story from Facebook's curated feed about protests over a children's TV show more significant and accurate than "NASCAR’s Bubba Wallace wants confederate flags banned from race tracks"? Is J.K. Rowling doubling down on a "transphobic manifesto" more significant and/or accurate than the sister of a slain police officer asking "Where’s the outrage for a fallen officer who happens to be African American?"? A group of curators selecting content does not necessarily make that content any more factual either. Curated news greater possibility of being propaganda because the news selection is in the hands of the few instead of the many. Is a propaganda section a propaganda section if it contains propaganda from both sides? I suppose, in that it is a section that contains propaganda, but the section itself does not serve as an unequal biasing agent for viewers, unless your issue with the engagement-based recommendation is that you believe it is biased in a certain direction. That seems like quite the assumption to assume that people will think content has factual merit because it shows up in their news section. People should not be treated with kid gloves and herded in certain directions out of fear that we will harm ourselves. Facebook should clearly label news sections as "Selections Based on Engagement" and "Selections By Facebook Curators". People are capable of understaning that the selected news is biased.