> Some people, particularly on the left, are unconcerned about political censorship by Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc, figuring that they will only censor people the left don't like.

Any source for that? That sounds like a gratuitous accusation

> Any source for that?

Does it need a source? I mean, can't it just be taken as trivially true, in the sense that "some people like sex and money" ought just to be taken as true?

Are you claiming that no-one on the left wants, for example, censorship of individuals such as Tommy Robinson? It is trivial to prove otherwise, for example this tweet from Tom Watson, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, stating:

> I have written to Google CEO @SundarPinchai calling on him, as a matter of urgency, to remove the YouTube page of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, aka Tommy Robinson.

-- https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/1101931566387941376

> Some people, particularly on the left, are unconcerned about political censorship by Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc, figuring that they will only censor people the left don't like.

The article does not talk about censorship but privacy. That a corporation uses data to sell advertisements has nothing to do with personal expression and censorship.

We can have a discussion about censorship when it's relevant. What has to do your comment with the post?

> We can have a discussion about censorship when it's relevant. What has to do your comment with the post?

Facebook's business model involves violating people's privacy.

Some governments might not want FB to do this. So FB are lobbying them to allow them to violate privacy.

Might it not, therefore, also be the case that FB will do other things to allow them to violate privacy?

And one of these things might be censoring politicians who want FB to respect privacy.