> I also wanted to point out that there's a technical term for true information that causes harm, "malinformation."
Wow, that is such an Orwellian thing to say.
The definition you just gave could be used to justify censorship of any truthful information.
Yes, this factual information is upsetting, but we need to let Facebook cover our eyes and decide how outraged we are allowed to be. Otherwise we might hurt ourselves or others.
I can appreciate that factual information could be presented in a dishonest way, but if it is so misleading, how is it not just misinformation?
Malinformation as a concept is specifically that truthful information can be problematic and we need to be "protected" from it. If the truth is upsetting, then try to solve the problem, not people talking about it.
---
Then again, perhaps good malinformation policies could have averted rioting last summer, and we could have censored the initial George Floyd video that made it look like Floyd was murdered by a cop. The police later released evidence that Floyd had overdosed on fentanyl and most likely died of natural causes. So, if our friends in big tech had simply censored things until the full facts came out and we could see context, it would have been more orderly and harmonious.
Isn't preventing rioting and civil unrest one of their goals? Too bad we couldn't have blunted the outrage.