Is there anyone here who is against what FB is doing in this situation but supported FB's backdown on the napalm episode? Welcome to the slippery slope of bad precedents.<p>Why does no one actually talk about the fact that no one should tell FB what it can and cannot bring down on <i>its</i> property? Feeling unhappy about their heavy handedness? Just stop using FB.<p>If you see my comments history, you will know that I actually despise FB a lot - but on this issue, I not only feel sorry for them, but I am a little surprised by the double standards.<p>Question for those who are now suggesting that government of country X should decide what is best to allow on FB's private property (remembering that FB would want to play it safe and in their ideal world would prefer that FB resembles Disneyland where people just wave and smile and buy expensive stuff)<p>1. Which government?<p>2. What if the government has an opposing government which has the exact opposite view on the censorship?<p>3. How can you be so sure the government you support is doing the right thing?<p>Is there anyone here who is actually surprised a government pounced on the first sign of placation from FB to now demand things which should be best left to FB's discretion? And do you honestly think the governments of other countries are not queueing up with their demand next?<p>And let us suppose that FB does follow some government's diktat, and takes some action which somehow counterintuitively worsens the situation somehow? Would you all then personally also take responsibility for the consequences? Here is what everyone will say at that point: well, no one can predict the future, and <i>of course FB had to do these things at its own discretion</i>.<p>And what about this statement: "All of this underscores the severe dangers of having our public discourse overtaken, regulated, and controlled by a tiny number of unaccountable tech giants."<p>No company has any more power on these matters than that which we give them, often willingly. They certainly exploit it, but why is the article talking about this as if FB sent its troops to scatter people who had gathered for public discourse? In your mind, maybe FB's censorship looks the same - but that is only true if you are left with no alternatives. Public discourse has not been "overtaken", people just want to have their cake (undisturbed expression of thoughts) and eat it too (on property that does not belong to them, or to the public).<p>I noted before, but FB should have been left alone to bring down any post it wanted, as long as it consistently enforces its rules even if you feel the rules are too naive and simplistic (e.g. nude picture of child).