So why not provide multiple Facebook views? That is, put everything in the same databases. Automate creation of flags for posts and accounts. Then let users set moderation level as they desire. Some would want everything. The rest would specify what they don't want to see. And they'd be warned about false positives. Some governments would limit options, I'm sure. But we already have that, so hey.
That's exactly what they do...the algorithmic feed is basically what you described except instead of it being very explicit upfront, the signals are a combination of explicit and implicit and the resulting view is always evolving independently for each person.
I kinda get what you're saying but in practice zero filtering would be a horrible horrible user experience. The content velocity on Facebook is so very high that unless you filter the feed in some way - it becomes a different product entirely, or perhaps even unusable.
And in the case of "Let the user choose the filters however they want", the business portion of the company takes on a massive risk. Remember this isn't a charity. Facebook wants to be able to make a lot of money and exist independently as an organization. Furthermore, they want to be able to predictably grow the business.
The reason I push back against your suggestions is because I see them often - solutions that swing too far into the realm of idealism and entitlement. Facebook is a business, so you have to be able to provide solutions that recognize the importance of the business side of things.
OK, I get that. Unfiltered Facebook would be a very different thing. And maybe not viable as a business. Because public outrage about stuff that offends them. And because laws against hate speech, subversive agitation, and so on. It'd probably need to be a Tor onion service, to protect the provider. Such as Diaspora or whatever.
And yes, I am an idealist. As Crowley defined Thelema, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law", and "Love is the law, love under will." The problem, however, is the haters. Burroughs joked about just killing them where they stand, and I suppose that's consistent with Thelema. But I can't see how it'd work in practice.
Because it's not about protecting people from being hurt by seeing what they don't want. It's about protecting people's minds from being exposed to ideas that Facebook or the government thinks they shouldn't think.
I'd say that it's both. Laws against hate speech are intended to protect people against seeing what might hurt them. But yes, many governments censor subversive speech, and force Facebook etc to follow their lead.
