The problems with Facebook can't be solved by censorship, either of Facebook users or of Facebook itself. To be blunt, your comment is presumptive, confrontati

The problems with Facebook can't be solved by censorship, either of Facebook users or of Facebook itself. To be blunt, your comment is presumptive, confrontational, and unpleasant for no reason. My point of view on this is obviously more nuanced than your lazy straw-man. In fact, I address this whole set of issues very explicitly in a sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29726829 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29726829 > to protect corporate rights and personhood In the comment I posted, had you bothered to read the whole thread instead of jumping down my throat, I say: >> Should a company the size of Facebook get Section 230 protection? Probably not. Should government officials be allowed to use social media sites for official business? I don't think so. Should campaign finance laws be strengthened and ad spends on social media sites subject to much more sunshine? Sure. And should meta be broken up? Yeah. >> I'm not here to defend Facebook, and I think the interventions I would propose to deal with the Facebook Problem are probably far more damaging to Facebook the company than "no more moderation". Far from advocating protecting corporate rights, I'm arguing for the dissolution of legal protections which are much more valuable to Facebook than its free speech protections. Moving on to the rest of your comment, you say: > this is the same argument as "Telling a shop owner which $PROTECTED_CLASS they must serve is restricting freedom of association Yawn. Who cares? This is not an instructive or insightful comment. It's a meme that has been repeated on every thread on this topic for close to a decade at this point. It doesn't really tell us anything about the nature of the problem. There are many ways to check corporate power. Compelling or restricting speech is not the right tool in the case of Facebook. Censoring Facebook as an intervention is too weak, too susceptible to abuse, and doesn't address the underlying problem. Go look at actual attempts to implement something like what you suggest. E.g., Hawley's legislation which would allow Facebook moderation powers (which is, frankly, necessary for any community with higher utility than 4chan). But which would also have a panel of political appointees decide, based on Facebook's moderation behavior, whether it should keep Section 230. Surely you see how that is ripe for abuse, right? Again. The problems with Facebook can't be solved by censorship, either of Facebook users or of Facebook itself. That is not a defense of Facebook. Quite the opposite. Speaking of irony... I'm literally the only person in this thread advocating for a solution to the Facebook problem that doesn't involve censoring someone/something.