[binxbolling]

Amazing to me that so many people in these comments believe Facebook is or can be apolitical. This is a very childish stance, and Zuck is not standing up for their right to remain out of politics: they're deeply political, and Facebook is just asserting which political viewpoints they subscribe to as an organization.

[therealdrag0]

Trying and failing to be apolitical is different than being intentionally political.

And I prefer platforms attempt the former.

[binxbolling]

"We will not curb violent speech if the speaker is a notable public figure" is already political. That's a political stance, not an apolitical one, and it's very naive to believe otherwise.

Besides, Facebook has a PAC! In what way is this attempting to be apolitical? Although their donations are split, since 2012 they've given 14% more to Republicans.

[therealdrag0]

> if the speaker is a notable public figure

I haven't seen this to be the case. My impression is they found that his speech didn't violate their normal policy. Do you have support to the contrary?

> Facebook has a PAC ... Lol good point. Though my assumption is this is for economic reasons. So technically you're right; that's political. Though I think it's a non-trivial distinction between trying to grease the economic engine to support corporate profits and being political in the sense of pushing for other left/right/progressive/conservative values.

[koheripbal]

Not censoring the president is political?

That seems like a very black-vs-white / with-us-or-against-us mentality.