Students do not want to be exposed to arrest and torture either. There's the problem with your analysis.
When we differ, there are many options besides deathmatch politics fueled by righteous indignation.
Seek understanding of others. Be secure in that, and who you are.
Celebrate differences and gain perspective.
Amplify good, talk through and maybe past bad.
I no longer judge much for past votes and difficult politics. I am most interested in votes and politics to come.
A whole lot is possible. Getting along better is the root of the possible.
We need more of the possible and line in the sand type conflict gets in the way.
Though maybe humanity not that bad and hopeless, maybe it was my English is that bad and hopeless?
The way I see it, there is an asymmetry of power. Governments are able to harm individuals far more than individuals can harm governments. This needs to be taken into account when we talk about "freedom" online.
What is "fight for them"? You want to discuss your views but not be criticized for them? Are you surprised people fighting for social justice have a strong reaction against viewports they feel are attacking their very personhood?
Yes, that is how civilized discussion works. You criticize the idea, not the person who disagrees with you. Ad hominem attacks that escalate into trying to get people fired are not a debating tactic, they're an attack on the mechanism of open discussion itself.
Also people often take criticism of their ideas as personal attacks so framing criticism as an ad hominem attack is often used to silence the criticism.
The sad part of it, to my mind, is those who critisize Facebook for this want to be exposed for opposing viewpoints to be able to fight opposing viewpoints. I do not want my viewpoints were exposed to those who oppose it. Opposition is too way ready to fight, I'm not. I'm happy to discuss them, but not to fight for them. Even your comment hints the same: you want exposure to make some viewpoints impossible, to fight them to death.
These critics are declaring openness and freedom but they are authoritarian by their nature, they want to one (their) viewpoint to win all others. It is irremovable contradiction between declared goals and real ones that cannot be fixed by Facebook.
The story from Bangladesh shows it in some sense. Authoritarian reign wants to be exposed to opposing views to fight them. Students do not want to be exposed to opposed views, they want to expose to their views only those who is ready to accept them.
SJW want to be exposed to opposing views to be able to scream "fire him". They also want to expose others to their views to hurt them.
Trolls of different colors and sizes want their shit to be exposed to a fan of public opinion and to make fun of hurting others.
I do not want my views to be exposed for general public because the goals of that public are under doubt, they do not want to learn my viewpoint to shift their beliefs close to mine, they want to learn my viewpoint to fight my viewpoint.
The trouble is not a degree of exposure, the trouble is people thinking that contradicting viewpoints should fight to death. And too many people looking not for viewpoints but for a fight of viewpoints. Of course it leads viewpoints to guard theirselves in a fragmented echo chambers, to self-reinforcing ideologies.