I've seen Facebook and esp. Twitter take an active stance on censorship that goes far beyond banning spam. While this is a cut&dry case, the HN discussion is clearly centered around 'special treatment of those in power' at large.
As I see it, fake news is a good 50-50 mix of actual fake news and a political perspective that is inconvenient to your agenda. This is especially true in India, where politics has always been the business of gangsters and liars. At this point, I'd be surprised if an Indian political rally by any party was less than 50% fake news. (In the sense that twitter censors it). Throwing unsubstantiated accusations towards your opponent is a grand political tradition that dates back thousands of years. To selectively silence one of them is to consciously pick sides.
> “It’s not fair to have one justice system for the rich and important and one for everyone else, but that’s essentially the route that Facebook has carved out,”
I'm not sure if I agree. Either a company as a service and it goes full 1st amendment, allowing any content that isn't illegal. Or, treat it as a profit making machine that optimizes for monetary gain.
___________
I personally lie on the 'Monopoly Social Media platforms' should have hard restrictions on what content they are allowed to moderate. Ads about Nigerian princes are banned, but Ponzi schemes and Goop get to keep advertising to billions.
While I strongly lean left (socially), I find the reporting on Modi from top tier US news organizations to be just as biased and colored with agenda as many of the articles on the other side (fawning over him) that people are asking to be banned.
It is quite hypocritical of left-leaning organizations in the west, to ask for 'objective standards of truth for others', but then turn around and say 'not for us, because we never lie'.