4 ms·

That's roughly the same model that Facebook and other social media platforms employed in the US. See where that got us. I agree that outright banning informati

That's roughly the same model that Facebook and other social media platforms employed in the US. See where that got us. I agree that outright banning information has all sorts of subtle knock-on issues. But simply assuming that authoritative data will overcome misinformation assumes that everyone regards the data as being authoritative. If they don't (and they definitely don't) then that model breaks down. Look at the rejection of scientific data around the efficacy of masks or vaccines as just one recent example of the problem here.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
No, that isn't at all what they employed. Social media is full of advertising and far away from "natural" content. Reddit may be a better example but even there is a lot of astroturfing. Be that as it is, but it would still be better than government control of content. And which content is illegal? Stating something wrong isn't, not even in Europe that has low protections of freedom of expression, even if it is mandated in most fundamental charters of every country. Some outlets are even open about artificial stories about the war. Someone that released the truth is imprisoned in the UK and in danger of being extradited.