Perhaps. You replied to my earlier comment, too, so let me answer that first. Your example was an excellent example of how many people can interpret the same ev

Perhaps. You replied to my earlier comment, too, so let me answer that first. Your example was an excellent example of how many people can interpret the same event in multiple ways. I think that is fair. However, I think it's fair to subject that to the standard of deductive reasoning and prepositional logic (not all interpretations are valid). Ie, in your example, it's possible to ascribe differing motives to the UN vote since it's unknowable on some level... but it's not valid to deduce from it that Obama is a secret Muslim that wants to destroy America. Specifically to the point I was making, Bannon has spoken and written publically (as a sibling comment mentioned) about his objectives. It is knowable and not subject to unlimited speculation. To this comment, we've digressed from the Facebook/Germany point. It's complicated. To your point, was Clinton supposed to pursue libel across ten thousand fly-by-night websites cross-sourcing libel (sometimes across jurisdictions where it was not practical to pursue them)? It is a judicial DoS, in a sense. A legal system is a hackable set of rules, and someone did that in the US election, and I think Germany is smart to try to prevent a similar result domestically (though I am not sure if fining FB $.5M per incident is effective or ethical).