I know the HN crowd is going to make a number of posts making the argument that any moderation by social platforms is a slippery slope towards authoritarianism.

I know the HN crowd is going to make a number of posts making the argument that any moderation by social platforms is a slippery slope towards authoritarianism. I used to be one of these people, so understand the appeal of this argument to those of us that have libertarian inclinations. However, I think it's an argument that's easily made in theory, but doesn't hold up when tested against its actual consequences. Specifically, I have consistently made the point that this argument is appealing due to it's simplicity and purity, but doesn't grapple with the actual consequences of allowing bad-faith actors to flood platforms with propaganda. Here are links to news stories that show how Facebook has been used by the Myanmar military, and by Sinhalese nationalists in Sri Lanka to incite genocide and anti-muslim violence: - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/05/13/sri-lanka-facebook-apologises-for-role-in-2018-anti-muslim-riots/ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/05/13/sri-lanka-facebook... I have updated my prior beliefs in free speech absolutism in the light of such events - some moderation is necessary due to the way social networks lends itself to exponentially amplify propaganda and disinformation in ways that, principled debate and discourse don't. I would love to hear what the posters arguing about censorship think we should do about these specific instances.