[thaumasiotes]

First amendment protections against compelled speech might interfere with this heavily editorialized "warning".

[another-dave]

I thought that Facebook's stance was that it was a platform not a publisher? If you have no editorial oversight or opinion on the content you publish (cf. not taking down known false political advertising) can you then claim "free speech"?

[jakear]

Similar warnings are required on cigarettes, and there isn’t much difference between the two.

[thaumasiotes]

Did you read blunderkid's comment? He's much farther into "opinion" territory. I don't think he's stated a single fact.

[allovernow]

When did the court rule that cigarettes constituted speech?

[jakear]

They didn’t. They ruled corporations don’t have much free speech when it comes to product advertising and declarations of potential harm their products may cause their users.

[avocado4]

> there isn’t much difference between the two

Can you post a link to RCT-based evidence backing this claim? I don't see anything on CDC website or any professional medical organization about Facebook being as harmful as cigarettes.

[jonathankoren]

Commercial speech is heavily regulated.