His article is more about the problem than the solution, which he says himself he's unsure of.

I think we can all agree that we have a social media problem.

People communicating openly and freely over the internet doesn't seem like much of a problem to me. The one thing he does get right IMO is that if you want to make real progress on this stuff you have to dig into root causes. The fact that people are rightfully distrustful of institutions isn't Facebook's fault and. It can't be solved by censoring Facebook.

>communicating openly and freely over the internet doesn't seem like much of a problem

This is an oversimplification. Communication is the foundation for nearly 100% of all events - good, evil, and neutral. It doesn't make sense to just call it good or bad as part of an argument.

Right, the communication is the problem, not the medium. We don't yell at at phone line operators because nazis have cell phones and we shouldn't.

Social Media has a specific format that encourages bubbles, extremism, and mob-type behaviors.

We need to design social media better to eliminate these tendencies.

I don’t agree.

We have a ‘Centralized Control of Social Media’ Problem.

My main reading of the text was the opposite - squashing dissent doesn't work in the long term?

>Clear and consistent enforcement of terms of service, increased transparency around campaign spending, and the removal of harmful content, such as online harassment and doxing, are needed. Algorithmic transparency and accountability are also important in surfacing how misinformation or other harmful content is spread and, in some cases, monetized. However, in addition to detection and deletion, we need a complementary redressive approach, seeking to slow and reverse people’s loss of trust in the center while restoring inclusive political institutions and accountable authorities.

He wants to censor all online harassment. In our microagreasion world we might as well just turn the internet off.