Tough spot for Zuck: he can't really do anything about this. Governments can be very sensitive if someone undermines their control of "free press". Most people

Tough spot for Zuck: he can't really do anything about this. Governments can be very sensitive if someone undermines their control of "free press". Most people in the US don't understand this, but in much of the third world papers (not to mention TV) just print what the government wants them to print, or they find themselves under some kind of scrutiny (taxes, criminal, etc). If anything, even with censorship, in those countries FB would be a far less controllable medium, because it's harder to fuck up an international megacorp in the same fashion and not cause a massive blowback. But ultimately, FB has to comply with the local laws, which can be arbitrary. There's no way out of this simple fact. So whatever mechanism one uses to "stop the spread of authoritarianism" can't be provided by a corporation, and it has to be resilient, distributed, and by definition, illegal in those countries. And still FB can't touch this, because it'll then be responsible not only for breaking the laws in the countries where it operates, but also for the lives of activists, if something goes wrong.