This is a case of advocating to suppress one kind of speech because it will lead to the suppression of another kind of speech. So maybe there isn't a problem here?
If the act of criticizing Facebook changes Facebook's behaviour because we've observed people are doing bad things linked to Facebook's current practices that is just the marketplace of ideas in action, isn't it?
>"This is a case of advocating to suppress one kind of speech because it will lead to the suppression of another kind of speech. So maybe there isn't a problem here?"
>"If the act of criticizing Facebook changes Facebook's behaviour because we've observed people are doing bad things linked to Facebook's current practices that is just the marketplace of ideas in action, isn't it?"
I don't understand what you're trying to say; perhaps you could clarify what you mean by adding some punctuation to your second paragraph.
Telephone companies and email providers as well. Full transparency, no encryption, proactive censorship for the purpose of safety and protection. They shouldnt be letting anything dangerous over their tubes ever, and we shouldnt be tolerating their facilitation of violence.
The accusations are not "facilitation" so much as "promotion". Allowing Militia and QAnon groups/accounts/pages to exist might be one kind of bad, actively promoting them to improve engagement and ad sales is a different level.