Right or left, you should be worried about big tech censorship

Ok sure, whatever. But the point would be to put facebook in a position where they are only doing moderation that a user is requesting that they do. We can use common carrier laws, or we can use some different legal precedent. Thats that goal. The specific method, or process, isn't really the main point.

> you're suggesting a strict reduction in moderation tools, and claiming that this will solve everything the way everyone wants.

I am suggesting that users should be allowed to have voluntary choices about what moderation they want to have, as it relates to them, without facebook forcing those decisions on the user.

> All of the options you want are already available

No, users still are forced to accept facebooks choosen moderation preferences. That can't choose to opt out of Facebook's censorship or moderation, if they voluntarily choose to subscribe to certain content.

> solve everything the way everyone wants.

It will solve what a lot of people want. Sure, I am sure that there are people who are just explicitly pro-censorship, and want the 1st amendment to be removed, and want the government to ban all opposing political opinions.

But there are also a lot of people who don't want facebook to be forcing users to accept certain moderation, and instead want users to be in control of what they see.

> how does your approach address coordinated misinformation campaigns?

If something is so bad, that it needs to be censored, then that is what the government is for. Terrorist threats are already illegal, for example.

Backdoor censorship isn't the way to go. If you really believe that mis-information is so bad, that it needs to be stopped, by these types of methods, then the onus should be on you to gather enough support, to get around the protections of the 1st amendment.

Checks and balances are difficult to get around for a reason. And if you can't get around these checks and balances, well thats the point of those checks and balances.

> I haven't done anything illegal

Well thats life. You are trying to backdoor your way to try to get stuff censored, because you aren't able to convince the government to do it. We don't need this backdoor method of supporting censorship.

> Spam is a much larger problem on my phone than anywhere else

There is nothing illegal about phone companies offering additional, voluntary methods, of allowing users to choose more things to be moderated for themselves.

Such problems could be solved that way. By facebook, or whoever, offering voluntary programs, to block certain types or categories of things, if the user chooses to opt in to that form of moderation.

> Ben Shapiro can post whatever he wants on Facebook

You don't have to listen to Ben Sharpiro if you don't want to, in this situation. Instead, you could just voluntarily choose to subscribe to a "ban right wingers" block list, or whatever voluntary algorithm that the user opts in to.

I'm not American, hell I can't even remember which of democrats/republicans are more or less conservative - or which animal logo is which.

What I'm saying is, that using the narrative makes you sound like a conspiracy nutjob that insinuates that there is some conspiracy going on.

But the alternative is that the government forces its own values onto the companies. I'm suspicious of "we're going to hide this information because its bad", but I'm also suspicious of "we're going to prevent companies from expressing values different from the ones the government allows".

I much prefer independent systems to a government that ultimately controls how and what corporations can say. The first is perhaps bad, the second is far worse.

My point was that given your view of free speech and the first amendment, a view that I fundamentally don't accept, I have no reason to trust that you're being forthright. And I think we have proof now that you were't. You admit that, in your view, we have gotten around the first amendment.

But you said that that was okay, that if it was so important, we could gather support and bypass the first amendment.

> If you really believe that mis-information is so bad, that it needs to be stopped, by these types of methods, then the onus should be on you to gather enough support, to get around the protections of the 1st amendment.

And my point is that we have that support right now. You're the one advocating for a change. So which is it, are we allowed to get around the first amendment, or not? When is it okay?

> The whole point is that you don't care about any of this, and just want to engage in authoritarianism, in any way that you can get away with. Thats the problem.

I think it's authoritarian to force groups to associate with people they don't want to. You're trying to use the first amendment, something that's supposed to protect our rights, as a cudgel to allow the government to strong-arm businesses into acting the way you'd prefer. That's authoritarian!

You're advocating for laws to enforce anti-authoritarianism. You want the authority to force people to (in your view) be less-authoritarian. Hopefully you at least recognize the irony.

> But the alternative solution, that provides a lot of benefits, to most people, is to simply incentivize facebook to implement these policies.

But you're not talking about "incentivizing" you're talking about forcing via law and government.

> that is almost as bad as if the government did it.

And what's even worse is the government having control over how and what they can moderate. Like it absolutely baffles me that you think further centralization would make this better.