>The major point of contention for me is the question of if it's Facebook's rightful place to regulate political speech, Truthfully, this goes right out the do

>The major point of contention for me is the question of if it's Facebook's rightful place to regulate political speech, Truthfully, this goes right out the door as soon as Facebook starts kowtowing to Government demands in order to continue operating. From the article: >Facebook has removed posts critical of the prime minister in Cambodia and reportedly “agreed to coordinate in the monitoring and removal of content” in Vietnam. Facebook was criticized for not stopping the repression of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, where military personnel created fake accounts to spread propaganda which human rights groups say fueled violence and forced displacement. While Facebook has walked back on the Myanmar situation, the fact stands that the initial response in these countries was to get comfortable with the Governments, not with the users and not with people they claim to serve. Facebook is a business, and I get that to some degree it answers to shareholders and chases potential revenue streams. But looking at some of the place that Facebook has been complacent, I'm really curious; is there honestly that much money for Facebook to chase? Facebook __could__ be doing a lot more than it is if it honestly believed in protecting freedom and all that jazz. Their conversations about protecting users and such ring pretty hollow when repeatedly they just bend over to get a foot in the door in whatever country is the target for that year.