For the past couple of decades, there's been some amount of affinity between Libertarians and conservatives. That's likely because the conservatives pay lip ser

For the past couple of decades, there's been some amount of affinity between Libertarians and conservatives. That's likely because the conservatives pay lip service to ideals of "smaller government", which is central to libertarianism. However, that really is just lip service, and so that alliance is a very [un]easy one. Even aside from that friction, there is some potential affinity between Libertarians and Liberals, because Libertarians see no governmental role in issues like gay marriage and use of medication/drugs. Because both groups seek similar outcomes in those areas there would be room for cooperation. But (IMHO) the Liberals are too antagonistic of property rights and self defense rights for this potential to be realized. Aside from political affinities, I think the real thrust of the parent post was that FB's actions are fraudulent: the product they're delivering to you differs in an important (to some people) way from what they claim they're delivering. In libertarian philosophy, fraud is just one form of force, which is the core evil: the central tenet of libertarianism is to not initiate force against another person. So at the risk of putting words in someone else's mouth: yes, a libertarian would be equally pissed off if the issue were the mirror of what we see here. EDIT: end of first para - omitted the "un", significantly changing meaning!