I don't get it either. I think Zuckerberg is doing the right thing by refusing to cave. I also agree with you that he already gave up far too much by agreeing

I don't get it either. I think Zuckerberg is doing the right thing by refusing to cave. I also agree with you that he already gave up far too much by agreeing to "fact check" content in the first place. > Actually, just people in general these days seem to believe it's their right to enforce their views on others... Only a small number of people, who we used to call liberals, ever believed this. Isiah Berlin: > It may be that the ideal of freedom to choose ends without claiming eternal validity for them, and the pluralism of values connected with this, is only the late fruit of our declining capitalist civilisation: an ideal which remote ages and primitive societies have not recognised, and one which posterity will regard with curiosity, even sympathy, but little comprehension. This may be so; but no sceptical conclusions seem to me to follow. Principles are not less sacred because their duration cannot be guaranteed. Indeed, the very desire for guarantees that our values are eternal and secure in some objective heaven is perhaps only a craving for the certainties of childhood or the absolute values of our primitive past. ‘To realise the relative validity of one’s convictions’, said an admirable writer of our time, ‘and yet stand for them unflinchingly is what distinguishes a civilised man from a barbarian.’ To demand more than this is perhaps a deep and incurable metaphysical need; but to allow such a need to determine one’s practice is a symptom of an equally deep, and more dangerous, moral and political immaturity. I hope we swing back the other way but it's worrying that so many people no longer see the value in pluralism of thought.