The first half of the article is just a list of zingers with no substance: > Facebook’s content regulations have been incoherent in design and in practice > Z

The first half of the article is just a list of zingers with no substance: > Facebook’s content regulations have been incoherent in design and in practice > Zuckerberg’s unsophisticated thoughts on free speech generated a manifesto that can only be called incoherent > ... listen to billionaire who seems to have barely cracked a book on the subject and can’t seem to form a clear line of argument > weak undergraduate essay that would earn at most a B- from any university professor > shallowest of platitudes > so weak and poorly structured that it could not have served as worse evidence in an argument for the value of speech itself