>I don't see where anyone is discarding integrity.

It takes integrity to defend a principle in lieu of doing the expedient thing of instilling a "zero tolerance" policy. One that you can define so broadly that you never have to suffer the PR backlash that will eventually result when someone takes advantage of these freedoms and does something abhorrent.

>Not all content is appropriate for all sites.

But I thought that all content is appropriate for all sites. Don't all people fit into size 36 jeans, like cheesecake, ride unicycles, and love to go hiking? I quite like your negate the absolutes game.

>Beyond that, while this is a famous picture, what most people think they know about it is wrong, so it's not really adding much to the public discourse.

That is a rather banal statement. It is obvious that the argument isn't about one particular picture, but about defending freedom of expression.

Nobody complains, nothing is likely to change, things stay the same. I'm on the side of complaining. You?

>It takes integrity to defend a principle in lieu of doing the expedient thing of instilling a "zero tolerance" policy.

If you start from the position that kind of content belongs on FB, then sure. But not of you don't. And I don't.

>But I thought that all content is appropriate for all sites. Don't all people fit into size 36 jeans, like cheesecake, ride unicycles, and love to go hiking? I quite like your negate the absolutes game.

And I quite like your pointless reductio ad absurdum. The point is Facebook is a site with a purpose, these kinds of articles are at best tangential to the site's purpose, and it's perfectly reasonable for Facebook to say "This content will make some people uncomfortable, and they're not coming to our site to be made uncomfortable." I would have thought my point was obvious.

>That is a rather banal statement. It is obvious that the argument isn't about one particular picture, but about defending freedom of expression.

Nobody is saying this guy doesn't have the right to express himself. The argument he's trying to make is he has some sort of moral right to put content he likes on a site created, owned, and operated by someone else for a purpose other than disseminating news. He doesn't.

This is why news organizations have their own web sites.

>Nobody complains, nothing is likely to change, things stay the same. I'm on the side of complaining. You?

Not me. I think Facebook made a perfectly reasonable decision here, and I'm not interested in change for its own sake.

You seem to have put a fair amount of effort into this declaration of principle and partisanship on behalf of an advertising company that wants to monetize everybody in the world. I hope it was worthwhile.

I have no doubt you can't understand why anyone would disagree with you, but maybe you can stretch a little, intellectually, and try to see other viewpoints.

I think I understand where you're coming from. It's possible I am wrong about that, and how would I really know? I don't think anything you've said is inaccurate, if that means anything. I do think that the organization you so capably defend is not worthy of your effort in so doing. But on reflection I'm not sure what purpose I thought I would serve in saying so.