It was a mob literally storming the primary political establishment of the country. I agree that there was zero hope of overturning the election, but this was m

It was a mob literally storming the primary political establishment of the country. I agree that there was zero hope of overturning the election, but this was massive symbolic blow at the peaceful transfer of power. I'll concede it was sensationalized to a significant degree - like the cop that was originally reported to had been killed by rioters, only for media outlets to quietly edit when the medical examiner found his stroke was unrelated. And articles writing that 4 cops died due to the riot when in reality they committed suicide months later [1]. But even if coverage was slanted, the basis of the events are definitely a "big deal" to put it mildly. What Facebook should do in response I'm more ambivalent about. People forget that we're seeing this with the benefit of hindsight. Holding a rally disapproving an election result is not an unusual thing. Plenty of people marched in the streets chanting "Not my president" following Trump's 2016 victory. How are websites supposed to know in advance which ones are going to turn violent? Furthermore, without clear evidence that Trump directed this mob, banning him would set a precedence ripe for abuse: have some of your own supporters commit crimes under the guise of being egged on by your opponents to get said opponents banned from the public square. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-deaths.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol...