Should we abandon honesty and accuracy if one side of an issue is genocide? Let me rephrase that: should I assume anyone speaking out against genocide is twisting words to their breaking point, and I shouldn't believe a word they're saying? Do you see the problem with this approach?

I find it incredibly dishonest to use spam-filters as a cheap trap that every non-spam message is "promoted", so that any usable messaging platform can be accused of "promoting" messages someone wants censored.

I propose the following: since opinion is split on this issue, using the (apparently incredibly broad) "promoting" will mislead a large segment of readers. And even those that won't be misled won't be any wiser, since to them, not having messages dropped as spam and algorithmically boosting a story so 90% of all Facebook users see it are both "promotion".

So instead of saying "promotion", say "treated the same as any other non-spam message". Unless you were in fact trying to mislead your readers, you would welcome this chance to be more accurate and descriptive.

Also when Google sends something to spam you can still read it. What "Amnesty International" is asking for here is making it impossible for people to read what some people say.