Oh, sure, I think the problems in these kinds of discussions is that each reader has their own mental picture of the type of content that is being described, wh

Oh, sure, I think the problems in these kinds of discussions is that each reader has their own mental picture of the type of content that is being described, which colors the discussion. I think the wuhan lab leak hypothesis is a good example - I don't think anyone serious or in a position of power was arguing that the statement, "It is possible that COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak" should be banned or restricted. Some people said that was hasty or lacking evidnce, that's different, that's people's opinion about an opinion. But there were also people saying, "china intentionally released covid to kill americans" and calling it "the china flu" and encouraging aggression towards china. That's obviously much more inflammatory. I'm not even arguing THAT should necessarily qualify as an outright falsehood (though I don't think it's a helpful way to have a conversation about a complex subject). I'm talking about, "Covid vaccines are killing thousands, so you shouldn't take one". Or, "the election was stolen from donald trump". I'm also not really arguing for censorship here - I'm just arguing that Facebook is a net negative in that they algorithmically optimize for the most inflammatory, most aggressive content, with the side effects that it amplifies the least true content.