>I agree in principle (e.g., Pizzagate and similar conspiracy theories), but delegating the arbitration of facts to a private company seems dangerous territory to me.
No one has delegated "the arbitration of facts" at any universal or societal scale to Facebook, nor is Facebook attempting to arbitrate all "facts" or "truth" on their own platform. The principle with which you agree appears to be the principle Facebook is actually using, and I see no "dangerous territory" in them moderating their own platform. There are plenty of other platforms where Pizzagate and other such conspiracies are taken as fact.
> The inconvenient answer as it appears to me is that folks have to discern what is nonsense and what isn't, which leaves us exactly where we are.
This is not an inconvenient answer so much as a thought terminating cliche.
I don't think Facebook has the public good in mind when they develop their product, but their bottom line first and foremost. They're a private company, they're beholden to their shareholders.
I also don't think that shifting responsibility from software to humans is a "thought terminating cliche" but a necessary step in how we orient the conversation about the mass dissemination of propaganda via tech platforms. There's a reason folks are eager to believe conspiracy theories and misinformation.
No one has delegated "the arbitration of facts" at any universal or societal scale to Facebook, nor is Facebook attempting to arbitrate all "facts" or "truth" on their own platform. The principle with which you agree appears to be the principle Facebook is actually using, and I see no "dangerous territory" in them moderating their own platform. There are plenty of other platforms where Pizzagate and other such conspiracies are taken as fact.
> The inconvenient answer as it appears to me is that folks have to discern what is nonsense and what isn't, which leaves us exactly where we are.
This is not an inconvenient answer so much as a thought terminating cliche.