[aero142]

Yes, but Facebook clearly wants you to believe that it is the user's freedom of speech being restricted, not their own freedom being restricted. At the same time, they want to be a "platform" and claim they are not legally responsible for what is being said, they just promote it.

[bhupy]

Unless there's some other context that I'm missing, the current boycott appears to be caused by Facebook's unwillingness to delete a (non-sponsored) Facebook post by a world leader.

If they were to do this, they would 100% be restricting the free speech of the leader in question, as well as that of the audience to read that speech. Facebook empowers its users to block / mute speech that individual doesn't want to read. It does not, however, empower you to prevent me from reading something that I, personally, have no issues reading.

This seems consistent with the principles of free speech, non-chronological feed notwithstanding.