For example, Trump has spread so many falsehoods but people still attend his events.
Yes, and the fact that they are free to buy a printing press doesn't mean that the New York Times is obligated to print their material on the Times’ press alongsode content that meets the Times’ editorial standards.
What happened to the traditional liberal distrust of big corporations?
What about if Facebook decides discussion of privacy violations online is "fake news?"
Anyone that runs a business has the responsibility to consider the ethical ramifications of their business activities, and to respond in a way that aligns with their ethical values.
FYI –– Y Combinator does exactly this on Hacker News: "selectively censoring (or at least hindering) communication it disagrees with"
I also don't use facebook at all.
It would worry me if an ISP or other group that should be a common carrier were censoring things. Or if the government censored things. But people on facebook are willingly buying into whatever facebook is providing.
What BS specifically do you disagree with? Do you realize your own bias with that statement?
There is a huge difference.
If someone is bullshitting you in real life, you don't give them a giant microphone so they can reach millions of people. You ignore them, or politely engage in conversation with them, or maybe even try to help them see the errors of their ways.
Why should Facebook be obligated to amplify deceptive messages? I don't see a reason.