Uh... no? It's a simple, straightforward English phrase. Speech which is problematic, as opposed to speech which is not.
"Problematic" being defined as "constituting or presenting a problem or difficulty."
Racist speech in historical documents constitutes and presents a problem or difficulty for modern readers. That's kind of the entire premise of the posted article. There is no doublespeak or newspeak or whatever "1984" is supposed to imply, involved.
Of course, I think it's their right to choose what they want to hear. But that does not mean I defend censorship.
How to filter the content they consume should be every individual's choice.
Now, platforms definitely should choose sensible defaults, but one should be able to easily opt out of them.
To be fair, that's just a restatement of the original definition. If someone doesn't want to hear a certain kind of speech, then they find it problematic.
> Now, platforms definitely should choose sensible defaults, but one should be able to easily opt out of them.
Also to be fair, Facebook apparently caught the error and corrected it, and it does have plenty of ways to opt out as a user.
The biggest problem here seems to be the assumption that a sensible policy can be automated.