I think your post makes an interesting point, but it is telling that you use the word "behaviour" and not "speech." In US law (and I assume many other countries

I think your post makes an interesting point, but it is telling that you use the word "behaviour" and not "speech." In US law (and I assume many other countries) there is a strong distinction made between speech and conduct. It is not a perfect distinction, and there are cases where the two become inextricably intertwined (threats, fraud, and child pornography to name a few). But the two are handled very differently, and no, for the most part, laws cannot regulate speech (at least not in the US). Though some cases of online speech fall into illegal areas like harassment or threats, most "trolling" is just run of the mill speech. However nasty or mindless, it is for the most part protected speech. Now of course Google and Facebook are not the government and are not bound by the first amendment, but you drew a comparison with laws. I think this is a poor choice of analogy as in this case, were google's program a law, it would be unequivocally unconstitutional.