In short, if the ideas are truly terrible they should be left viewable to everyone since they'll only turn people off. It's when you hide things that people become curious as to why the content is powerful enough to require censorship.
In short, if the ideas are truly terrible they should be left viewable to everyone since they'll only turn people off. It's when you hide things that people become curious as to why the content is powerful enough to require censorship.
I don't know if it's correct in this case. But I know that in general, people see censorship as validation of the ideas being censored, and also as a rallying flag for something to be angry about.
For context, I'm not right-wing myself but absolutely object to censoring content based on political viewpoints such as this.
Also, I note that that article states that other "curators" denied such a bias exists. Facebook have denied such activities. Ok, being sceptical, they would say that. But it could be bullshit spewed by an ex-exmployee So, where's the study? The data? How do we show whether or not there is a bias, assuming you care enough to investigate? It's just more conspiracy theories and "typing" isn't it.