Granted, Facebook is supposed to be more open for everyone, but it’s still their platform, their reputation, and they can decide what to filter - and people can decide to take their discussions somewhere else.
Perhaps Facebook now is a publisher and needs to increase censorship even more.
Or the law can be changed to differentiate based on the scale of contributions and the corresponding complexity of moderation.
In my head, if they do any filtering or ordering of content, they have to be accountable such content, since they are exerting a de facto editorial line.
I don't really understand how a newspaper publishing an incendiary op-ed can accountable for it, whereas the same thing as a viral FB post won't hold FB accountable. The only difference is that an editor picks the former, and an algorithm picks the latter.
Is that it? Does delegating responsibilities to a computer make us any less responsible of the results?
Facebook can indeed decide what to filter, but its also permissible for other organizations to make users aware that Facebook may filter and display misleading messages based on inaccurate fact checking and that the fact-checking organization that caused the filtering defamed a reputable publication by falsely alleging that their content is a hoax.