Sounds like the discussion is nuanced. But this nuance is lost by Facebook slapping a label on his content as "misleading", which for all intents and purposes means "wrong". Sounds like defamation to me. Why is Facebook involved in adjudicating the nuance of unsolved public policy debates?
Totally agree that Facebook's label bypasses any nuance, but that isn't illegal and we can't make it illegal. It isn't defamation by the dictionary definition (it isn't a false claim), and it certainly isn't defamation by the stricter legal definition. Imagine what would happen if you could sue anyone for accurately quoting you but leaving out a piece of context. Could you sue a movie critic for a bad review that misunderstood the director's intentions? Could you sue for an internet reply that quoted only part of your comment and misrepresented your views? Could you sue a journalist for not printing every interview unedited in its entirety? Could you sue the NFL for stating that a team lost without explaining that a star player was injured at the time?
Where is the nuance? It opens by mocking politicians for blaming the fires on climate change, then it spend the rest of the video explaining that forest management is the cause of these large fires. Facebook's brief version is an excellent summary of his video's content. What is this nuance that it has left out?
> But this nuance is lost by Facebook slapping a label on his content as "misleading", which for all intents and purposes means "wrong". Sounds like defamation to me.
I can't speak for other countries, but in America reducing nuance is not defamation; provably false statements of fact are defamation.
The 1st Amendment protects your right to oversimplify things.
>why is Facebook involved in adjudicating the nuance of unsolved public policy debates
presumably because that debate took place on Facebook. Is it unusual to you that the party that is responsible for hosting a public debate adjudicates said debate? That's generally how it works.
