[siruwastaken]

Legally finding plaintiffs, who can sue us for our illegal machinations is not allowed on our platform. What a world we live in. If this isn't the simplest demonstration of monopolization of social media that Facebook has, then I don't know what is.

[Traubenfuchs]

Would you allow it on yours? As a shareholder or on the board of directors of your company I would not be pleased.

Nothing nefarious about that.

[hotstickyballs]

It’s not illegal, just stupid because. Because plaintiffs can use this as evidence that they can police their own platforms

[polishTar]

That’s an internet argument. The legal issue being debated in actual courts has never been “does Facebook have the technical capability to remove content”.

[jquery]

There's a strong chance it's illegal so admitting to it is pretty breathtaking. They must be very confident they're in the clear, or the spokesperson didn't run this by the right people.

[feralsandwich]

What is illegal about it? What law does it break?

[JumpCrisscross]

Could these removals indicate editorial discretion that would remove § 230 protections from Facebook?

[feralsandwich]

I think that would apply if they started removing user content about this. But Facebook is simply declining to accept ads about this, which doesn't seem like it would apply here.