And the violence in Sri Lanka last spring is also worth mentioning.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/05/facebo...

"The assertion from senior government officials, therefore, that the ban on Facebook put a stop to the violence is inaccurate. Data scientists and researchers have flagged that the block on social media did little to deter the mobs, who found their way around it with ease. While not entirely blameless, Facebook also became an easy scapegoat."

It's a communication platform. You want a censored internet.

FB is the censored Internet.

Covert user activity tracking, links to outfits like Cambridge Analytica, troll farms, "disappeared" groups, and all under the pretext of targeted ads - in what sense is any of that a clean, free-range Internet?

3 out of your 4 examples don’t have anything to do with censorship, not even remotely. You’re being disingenuous.

Not to mention “clean” and “free-range” are diametrically opposite.

> It's a communication platform. You want a censored internet.

It's a communication platform designed to enflame and enrage, because outrage gets the higher engagement metrics therefore higher AD revenues. Facebook designed themselves out of any legitimate argument they are merely a benign platform.

In the 1994 Rwandan genocide, they used a radio station to incite hatred and, well, the genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide