The article didn't try to explain the details beyond quoting Facebook's "policies" phrase in literally an incomplete sentence. Couldn't the BBC journalist inte

The article didn't try to explain the details beyond quoting Facebook's "policies" phrase in literally an incomplete sentence. Couldn't the BBC journalist interact with a Facebook spokesperson via phone or email to ask for more detail? Which policies, etc. Conspiracy theorists and deep state lunatics - great, ok, we got rid of them. But is no one concerned that we're putting a lot of trust in Facebook or Twitter or other companies mentioned to correctly deem what's correct and incorrect information? If you go back in time, there have been countless cases of journalists uncovering important cases but who were suppressed by the authorities and institutions. Yes, they come off as "conspiracy theories." Until, later we're very thankful for their bravery and sacrifices. Just because QAnon peddles silly theories, doesn't mean that we should clap and smile and puts our thumbs up at this, or the removal of people like Alex Jones. Let's put on our creative thinking caps and consider what happens if someone who you happen to like, or a more obscure or unpopular group who thinks differently is muted. A basic principle of pluralism of ideas is, yeah, some ideas are just not agreeable. That's up to us to bite our tongues and tolerate it. If you think the conspiracy theories die along with QAnon Facebook Groups then you've been living under a rock.