So let's step away from the "Nazis" part for a second, and rewrite the headline: "Facebook Decided Which Users Are Interested in ____________ -- and Let Ads Tar

So let's step away from the "Nazis" part for a second, and rewrite the headline: "Facebook Decided Which Users Are Interested in ____________ -- and Let Ads Target Them Directly". Isn't this how it is supposed to work? So let's go back to the "Nazis" part of this. Yes, Nazis, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists and racists of all stripes are repellent to most of us. Are we agreed on that? Good. How is Facebook supposed to differentiate between somebody who is an admirer of Nazi icons, and somebody simply doing research on them? Is somebody supposed to be curating a list of what's "acceptable" for people to like and not like? Who's in charge of that list? What happens when those people leave and are replaced by different people? What happens when something deeply embarrassing to Mark Zuckerberg or Facebook takes place and starts getting attention? Should that be on the list? And if somebody places it on the list, what recourse does anybody outside of that company have to remove it from that list? Popular, happy speech isn't the speech that needs to be protected. Everybody nods when this point is raised, then we end up having this same stupid conversation again in a couple of weeks and people act like this time something is new and different and in just this case perhaps some light, smiley-faced censorship is necessary... but of course it surely won't get out of hand. Sheesh.