I cannot read the whole article due to the paywall, but from what I infer the article is trying to tell that Facebook is not doing enough to suppress incendiar

I cannot read the whole article due to the paywall, but from what I infer the article is trying to tell that Facebook is not doing enough to suppress incendiary content. But isn't that asking Facebook to be a censor and arbiter of suitability of content. It may well seem to people and the mainstream media from Western democracies that Facebook is acting irresponsibly, but out here in the third world where our freedoms and liberties are not so strongly enshrined, Facebook and their ilk are valuable channels to speaknout against oppression by governments. I fear what measures Western people and Govts force upon Facebook etc on grounds of greater responsibility for content, will effectively grant more power to repressive governments to censor legitimate dissention. Moreover the Western MSM seems to think that Facebook and other social networks should bear greater responsibility since people seems to be getting more and more of their news through the social networks. In that regard, perhaps it is the media houses who is trying to protected their vested interest, who want to perpetuate their role as gatekeepers of information. I think the time for gate keepers is past, they should be evolving towards a model where their focus is not news gathering and reporting, rather it is establishing/publishing trust measures for news items circulaing in social networks/internet.