> - You're giving the government (more specifically the party in power at the time) control over a highly effective form of propaganda, which won't have a good

> - You're giving the government (more specifically the party in power at the time) control over a highly effective form of propaganda, which won't have a good outcome. > - The US government would only regulate FB as it relates to US citizens, leaving FB free to operate as now in the rest of the world. The article acknowledges both points and partly addresses the first. Also, it's not clear to me why you'd prefer a private corp wield this power than the government, when the latter is at least ostensibly accountable to citizens/voters and the former is not whatsoever. > - In Japan where a similar addictive product aimed at minors (tobacco) is mostly under public ownership, the Japanese government has dragged its feet at regulation to reduce harm from cigarettes - eg it only banned smoking in bars last year. In the Japanese case they don't want to imperil the profits from JTI (Japan Tobacco). Meanwhile, smoking in bars is still not banned in much of the US...