[posterboy]

> Its only raison d'être is entertainment and generating revenue for its shareholders, so it's rather pointless to try to fight their arbitrary rules.

How does it do that without users? I was taught, anyone with any interest in the operation is a stakeholder. If easy dispersion of information is their offer to users, they should be liable for that. If they aren't, the user should either seek support from the government to hold the debtor (facebook) accountable in an anti-trust issue, or consequently reevaluate the offer, if the original intent can not be expected anymore.

Since FB uses advertisement, which is controversial, this is not a clear cut case to me. Because of multiple share holders, facebook has to arbitrate the interests in their own interest. This is also controversial in the question of delivering the best experience regardless of the advertisement. The advertisement just makes it so much more complicated, because it often times borders on deception, if not fraud.