[gshulegaard]

This is interesting...and actually brings up interesting questions when viewed in the context of states that place protections on freedom of speech.

Don't really want to start a long debate...but for me I am not sure I believe that (at least in America), Facebook "can censor whatever they want." Not that I object to this application of censorship...just I don't think Facebook has carte blanche when it comes to censorship.

[ProAm]

Why not, its a private site, freedom of speech does not pertain to Facebook.

[gruez]

Right, legally it's okay for facebook to censor stuff. But ethically/morally, some people do not think that's the case because they feel they're abusing their large marketshare.

[ProAm]

Ethics and morals with Facebook? They have a long troubled history of dealing with both. It's a company, and companies want to make money, that's the bottom line. Of course it's censored in their best interests.

[amyjess]

Morally, they have the right to decide who they want to associate with.

[gshulegaard]

Well the obvious example is conflict of interest cases.

Take the hypothetical situation where someone writes a negative exposé on Facebook privacy policies and then plugs a competitor. Suppose in this contrived example that Facebook systematically removes all related content to this exposé and bans the creator.

On one hand Facebook is a private company. On the other they are built around a communication platform and communication is a constitutionally protect right in America. Moreover, this type of practice could be considered anti-competitive and subject to anti-trust regulation (a bit unusual, but there is precedent).

I am not trying to advocate one or another view on this issue...more of trying to frame what I think is an interesting question: Where is the line where private rights give way to public rights...if at all?