> Facebook is very much a platform that restricts free speech. I made my case for why this is not the case. 1. We agree that pornography restriction is a viol

> Facebook is very much a platform that restricts free speech. I made my case for why this is not the case. 1. We agree that pornography restriction is a violation of free expression. Because there are other alternatives, I feel less bad about their restriction of it. Because there are no other alternatives to an open public square of ideas (such as Facebook), I feel stronger about it. It would obviously be ideal if Facebook took an "anything goes" approach and allowed others to build client-side tooling for individually controlled moderation. 2. To the extent that Facebook restricts speech outside of pornography, it is either speech that is a) already restricted by the legal system (false advertising, intellectual property violations, defamation) or b) an overzealous regulation of speech. Again, I reiterate: WE CAN FIND COMMON GROUND and agree that (b) is bad. Continue to call that out. Complaining about FB's political ad policies is IMO an ineffective way to change (b). Unless you're able to address those points, you can take it or leave it. > They even restrict political speech. Unless it comes from a political campaign. So, no, as an individual, you don't even have the option to present your own arguments. They absolutely do not do this. Please provide evidence of this. God knows my entire feed is filled with political speech by friends and family, so if you're right about this, I may have the cudgel I need!