> Yeah, and Facebook's servers have limited capacity and their bandwidth is billed at-cost. This is a red herring. Facebook doesn't argue that they have to ban

> Yeah, and Facebook's servers have limited capacity and their bandwidth is billed at-cost. This is a red herring. Facebook doesn't argue that they have to ban Trump to save bandwidth. > In any case, your liability as a user increases as your share of that content scales. I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. > All you've done so far is deflect, without actually making any case. This is pretty rich. My first comment in this thread was: "Yeah, I don't have a facebook account either, yet I'm concerned about censorship on facebook, because facebook has enough users in my country to swing any election." All you've done is to deflect from my main point - the concern about facebooks power to swing elections - by playing wordgames with the word "censorship", making various claims about what isn't censorship without even offering a definition of your own. > You can build your own social network in 5 minutes with Mastodon and a VPS. Failing that, there's hundreds of decentralized and perfectly un-censorable protocols that you can use too. Needless to say, none of this engages with my main point either.