I won't answer whether that entity should be Facebook. But when people start getting shot at and transparently disreputable demagogues start getting elected I would say the conversation at least has to begin.
Also nobody was shot, the other article i read in the morning clearly mentioned that he only shot upwards and was not trying to actually hurt anyone.
Seriously if people are stupid enough to do such shit there are different issues to be solved. If people are scared of people wearing and using weapons then they should no be so easily available for example.
The only solution against stuff like this without fixing our society would be complete censorship & government control. I hope this is not really what you suggest.
It's in a site's best interest anyway. Imagine if normal adults weren't so embarrassed to admit using Reddit.
But why would Reddit be allowed to decide which conspiracy theorie can be discussed? Seriously, i dont want to live in a world where the few semi open platforms we still have decide what we are allowed to talk about and what not when no laws are broken anyway.
Mainstream journalism has to regain credibility.
The first step down that road is producing credible journalism, a difficult but necessary cost the industry is going to need to swallow if it expects to survive.
The alternatives are an expansion of thought censorship from the mainstream networks to its bubbling alternative competitors.
I understand the urge to misrepresent the world to garner public support. I really do. But nature abhors a vacuum. When the information available to the public is obviously compromised it will be filled by something or someone else.
The response to that isn't to censor alternatives and continue the misreporting. The solution is to recede from propagandistic instincts, and provide the kind of analysis you want to be recorded in history books for providing to democratic deliberation. If people really understand what's at stake in issues, and what powers, people and industries has what stake where, and when they understand issues to the point where they can make discernible political decisions - be they about representation or directly on issues - rather than being emotionally coerced at scale by every media platform above water; then, and only then, will the "information war" the State Department has been waging will really be won. It won't be won by the State Department, but by the people. And it will be for the people and by the people.
Truly: the alternative to this is to continue down this folly road of doctrinal misrepresentation of the world to the American people, and to play whack-a-mole with every narrative that challenges the useless and ill-predictive emotional appeal whose vacuum is being challenged.
(I speak as an American about my country).