1. Since then the rise of LLMS has made it easy to accomplish censorship without preventing anyone from speaking. Just drown out voices of moderation with endless engagement bait, or create a network of bots to make it seem like tons of people are reporting a particular community note as inappropriate.
2. The second half of Zuck's thought at the time was that moderation should be more community-oriented -- that communities around the world should have more freedom to make their own decisions around what kind of content was appropriate speech. Unfortunately while I see a gesture in this direction with community notes, it doesn't appear that the community has been given any power to stop a hateful message from being amplified.
Of course, the devil is in the details of enforcement: who watches the watchmen?
That sounds superficially reasonable, but I don't think that it's true.
Turn the sentence around: "when you spread ideas more widely, they become more attractive to a large number of people". Repetition works. It's why trillions gets spent on advertising each year.
they are regarded by society as the arbiters of truth, regardless if they wish to be or not.
not that i'm a fan of censorship, but if a foreign power's strategy is to sow mass disinformation, it's up to the corporation to stop it.
don't like it, Mark? you don't have to have $100 billion either, you could willingly give all of it up.