[solipsism]

Not "allowed"? By whom? I'm afraid it's you who is confused. The first amendment doesn't recognize a difference between "editorial content" and non-"editorial content". Comcast could carry only conservative channels without issue.

[nametakenobv]

>Comcast could carry only conservative channels without issue.

This is nonsense. When there is concentration in information distribution, the distributor must allow anyone and everyone equal access to the channel.

[gnaritas]

According to what, your gut? If you're going to keep insisting that companies "must" do this or that, you need to cite the law that requires them to do so.

[nametakenobv]

According to anti-trust law.

[gnaritas]

Anti-trust laws are about preventing monopolies, which Facebook is not, and have nothing to do with mandating any kind of fair service for non monopolies. No case can be successfully made calling Facebook a monopoly on social networks, you don't have to use them there are many other options.

[nametakenobv]

Anti trust law does not deal only with monopolies. It is about companies with dominant positions.

Is facebook a company with dominant position?

[gnaritas]

You're talking about things you don't understand, there is no case anyone can rationally make that Facebook is subject to anti-trust laws. You do not have to use Facebook, there are tons of other social networking sites, Facebook is not using anti-competitive practices to prevent competition.

Anti-trust laws require far more than just being popular to apply and there's nothing in them that applies to Facebook or any other website. Anti-trust laws in the U.S. have never successfully been used against a website because the very notion is absurd.