[r2dnb]

I just posted on an another thread that the problem here is that Facebook positionning / PR is to be say that they are a neutral agent.

"Share what you want with your friends / family etc." This is why this case is different. If I use ExxonMobilBook, I kind of know what to expect of Greenpeace related stories.

Given their size, extra-precaution needs to be taken. They either need to rollback, or make their agenda more appearent.

[tyleraldrich]

"They either need to rollback, or make their agenda more appearent."

That is an opinion. They, in reality, don't need to do anything, nor do they owe you anything. Just because their positioning/PR makes them seem neutral, that doesn't mean they are required to be. They don't need to take precaution, and I will eat my shoe if this decision is what causes Facebook to lose users. Fact of the matter is, 99.9% of users don't care, .09% are cool with facebook doing this, and .01% (you) want them to roll back.

[vivekd]

To be fair, facebook can, if it wants, put full blown nazi propaganda on their network and delete anything anti-nazi. Of course just because it's legal for a company to do that doesn't mean it's ethical and okay and we should just accept it. Similarly, while it's perfectly legal or facebook to select news stories to try and politically influence it's users, that would be highly unethical.

To be fair to facebook though, reddit has been actively caught doing this repeatedly so I don't know why everyone is harping on facebook instead of reddit.

[dabockster]

> 99.9% of users don't care

More like 99.9% of users don't know enough about the situation to warrant an opinion.

I mean, if you asked random passerby on the street about Facebook's neutrality in terms of freedom of speech, I guarantee you that 99.9% of them will respond with something along the lines of "I don't know, I just use it to share funny cat videos with my friends lmao xD" or "If you don't like it you don't have to click on it".