There are lots of things you can say about this, but the core, I think, is that we really don't know what we think about it. https://m.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10112270823363411

We spent hundreds of years evolving complex, mostly implicit social norms, institutional structures and laws around speech, where speech exists in many different spheres, from a private phone call to a bar to a newspaper. And that varies a lot by country.

'What can you say?' is enforced by your friends or colleagues, or by a barman, or by a newspaper editor or bookseller, and very occasionally by a judge. Norms and institutions. But none of those exist on the internet. The whole structure of the internet removes gatekeeping

The internet and social platforms imploded all of that. All the rules and social pressure and gatekeepers are gone, and now anyone can say anything to anyone and get any kind of audience. And now speech on the internet is like Iraq after the invasion - there are no norms.

And yet somehow Facebook/Google/Twitter are supposed to recreate that whole 200-year tapestry of norms, structures and consensus, and answer all of those questions, for both Boston and Myanmar, from office parks in the San Francisco Bay Area...

And do that conscious that they don't have social or democratic legitimacy to make those kinds of decisions. How can a 30-something PM in Palo Alto decide the basis of political speech in Malaysia?! But none the less someone has to do 'something', and who else is there?

The cliche here is to talk about Voltaire or the American constitution, but Burke seems much more instructive.