In general, do you agree with Meta’s new content moderation strategy?

👍 Yes (31%) – "Free speech is a fundamental God-given right. Meta and other social media companies should have never infringed on it in the first place. The community notes model works well on X, so I'm glad they are implementing this now. For those who fear they'll eventually read something they disagree with. Grow up! As adults we should be able to hear differing opinions and have respectful discourse."

• "I'm glad the fact-checking is being removed. While in theory I like the idea, there's too many issues that get embroiled in controversy when fact-checked (and sometimes satire and political jokes get fact checked, which is a shame). Second, I've recently been challenged that misinformation has a right to exist - healthy debate is part of the discovery of truth. This shouldn't change the fact that dangerous and violence-inciting speech should still be moderated, and it doesn't sound like Meta is trying to change that. The only thing I'm unsure about is this 'Community Notes' thing. I haven't been on X so I haven't seen how that functions and I'm just trying to figure out what the end result of that is."

"The terms "misinformation" and "hateful speech" have been misused over the past several years, being defined differently depending on the perspective of the speaker. For example, alternate ideas about vaccines became labeled "misinformation" rather than an invitation to discuss the matter."

👎 No (54%) – "This is obviously a way for Zuckerberg to get in Trump's good graces, and it's incredibly dangerous for the information landscape, which has already been declining. I am concerned that it will be even harder for everyday people to get factual news, especially those who aren't seeking it out and want their biases confirmed."

• "We need MORE fact checking, not less. Misinformation is what has led this country to where it is now. And letting users decide is not relying on facts, but on user opinion - this is going to lead to more division. We need to be informed with facts AND THEN establish our own opinions based on factual information - NOT create facts out of people's opinions or non-factual information."

"Revising Section 230 of the Communications Act to hold social media platforms financially responsible for misinformation could significantly enhance content moderation policies, benefiting all Americans. By imposing financial accountability, these platforms would be incentivized to swiftly and effectively address the spread of false information. This change would encourage the development of robust moderation systems, ensuring that harmful content is identified and removed promptly. As a result, users would experience a safer and more reliable online environment, fostering informed public discourse and protecting the integrity of information. Ultimately, this revision would promote a healthier digital ecosystem, aligning the interests of social media companies with the well-being of society."

• "This country is severely challenged on the facts. Our news journalists are biased. The social media tools worsen the effect by just running algorithms that feed us more and more of the same. And not we have a President that dans flames with his own alternative facts. Community fact checks? Not timely, and further creates anger and hate of the other. Democracy requires actual news. We need regulations that at least remove the algorithms on news, and force differing opinion and context to the feeds."

"Amateur information/misinformation "fact checkers" can easily spread dangerous misinformation, perpetuate hate speech, and are a danger to democracy."

🤷 Unsure/other (15%) – "I’m trying to be open minded for the sake of “free speech”, I don’t think it’s healthy for things to be too censored. You can claim something is not ‘fact’ online… but then where did you get the fact? However, my own political bias has me worried this is a step in the wrong direction. More ability for users to spread misinformation and hate."