I respect agree with your belief that freedom of speech is important, but I disagree with your conclusion that "Internet companies transmitting people's ideas"

I respect agree with your belief that freedom of speech is important, but I disagree with your conclusion that "Internet companies transmitting people's ideas" is no different. The key idea here is that freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of reach: Facebook might give everyone the same text box to write posts or upload content, but they need to answer for HOW and WHY they recommend certain content over other types of content. The comparison pencils or air isn't fair because they aren't being boosted by a recommender system, powering the application layer of the content delivery platform for 90% of a country's people. If I write a message on paper containing a call to action which incites violence (e.g. "We should round up all people with six toes on each foot and shoot them") and hand it to one person, the message has reached one person. I would say, the digital equivalent to "pencil and paper" or "talking in a public square" more like "Writing a message in an HTML file and putting that HTML on a web server you own." I think it would be much more difficult for your average user in Myanmar to reach millions, even if they were given a web server and the means to write HTML. Comparing it to "getting mad at air because it allows people to transmit their thoughts" equates Facebook the Internet, when one is an organization of people who provide technology and the other is technology. There are data scientists and engineers who created the models which learned how to optimize for engagement, and there are product managers who help set the KPIs for those engineers (i.e. encouraged them to solve for engagement) and there are execs who benefit from all of the above. While no single person is solely to blame for what happened in Myanmar, it's wrong to claim that we can't at least reason and discuss the products still created, maintained and own by company (made of people). My opinion on this is heavily formed by the training I received when I wanted to DJ for my university's radio station. Even in the US, where freedom of speech is protected in the Amendments to the Consitution, there were very specific things you could and could not say on the air (while being classified as a non-profit radio station). You could receive massive fines for profanity, obscenity, inciting violence, hate speech, with a large general emphasis on calls to action. Generally, I think this training was good and it encouraged everyone who learned to DJ to be more intentional with their language. I really think that if Facebook is gonna enable users to reach millions, there absolutely should be some caveats to that. People should be able to say whatever they want if they are capable of providing the means by which their own speech is amplified--and even then there are clear cases where the megaphone needs to be taken away. Facebook is giving megaphones to people and some people use it to dispense hate speech. While I might've been willing to give Facebook a pass in their early years, it is clear that between Cambridge Analytica and this that governments around the world need to do better when it comes to working with Facebook to better identify content on their platform which incites violence or calls to action which present a clear and present danger to other people if acted upon. Facebook isn't some amorphous inanimate entity that we can't negotiate/regulate/punish. If someone uploads a hateful message which has a 0.00001% of encouraging a hate crime in Burma, Burma can expect around 5 hate crimes as a result of this message. With great power comes great responsibility.