[newsyyswen]

It is a problem of their own making.

If they cannot manage unmoderated posting without hurting a lot of people, why should they be allowed to run a business based on unmoderated posting?

Would you say it is a catch-22 for a factory if a government ordered them to stop production or stop polluting nearby waterways with their toxic runoff? Perhaps for the factory, but the nearby communities would say it's a clear-cut case.

[joejerryronnie]

My telecom company is not responsible for moderating all speech that occurs over their cellular service. How is this different from FB?

[newsyyswen]

Your telecom actually is responsible for moderating your usage - try consistently pirating media without a good blocklist in the US and see how long you keep your service. Most providers will cut you off after a half-dozen or so nastygrams, and that's just for the light offense of copyright infringement.

Your telecom also uses tax money to fund its infrastructure deployments, and it is regulated as more than an ordinary private company.

[tynpeddler]

> If they cannot manage unmoderated posting without hurting a lot of people, why should they be allowed to run a business based on unmoderated posting?

This is nonsense. They are trying to moderate content and they're being told that it's not permitted. It's qualitatively akin to requiring the New York Times to publish all letters to the editor. Or more specific to the posted article, require that the NYT write a personalized response for each letter that they don't publish and give the letter's author an opportunity to edit it for content.