Facebook and newspapers are both private companies and are subject to the same law. They can't do whatever the hell they want. They can't publish slander, for e

Facebook and newspapers are both private companies and are subject to the same law. They can't do whatever the hell they want. They can't publish slander, for example. However it seems that limits to free speech are expressed differently for newspapers and Facebook. I am still thinking about this. Newspapers always have selected expressions. This is just because it is unfeasible to let everybody express themselves in a newspaper. It is a lot of work to print someone's free speech, so the newspaper has to select. This is not limiting someone's free speech. And for social media companies the barrier to let someone express themselves is a lot lower. As a society we are still figuring out what this means for free speech. Five hundred years ago with the print press the balance shifted, too. Monarchs in Germany were ousted. Society learnt to appreciate the freedom of the print press and to draw lines in the sand with slander and libel. We need to find out the rights, obligations and prohibitions concerning social media. It's a process. It needs time. I think, a novel concept will be that society's trust in information is a worth needing protection. It's similar to the concept that public health is also something that needs protection. This means: five hundred years ago with printing presses people learnt to extend protection from insults to newspapers. A few hundred years later protection of personal integrity from slander is part of Human Rights. And now this seems to be repeating with society's trust in information.