However, I get to be morally outraged at their actions whenever it pleases me, and I get to get others to be outraged too and if we're enough people we may convince them to change course.
In that sense, I don't care one bit about the guy in Teheran who thinks being LGBT is wrong and I don't have to.
I'm still worried about the guy who does get to dictate what Facebook will carry (namely, somebody at Facebook). I don't want that person to be very morally absolutist, and I worry that they are becoming increasingly so as time goes by.
There are opinions that I don't agree with that I think are still completely legitimate and perfectly moral.
There are opinions that I take serious issue with and may even find immoral but for which I'd still claim that it's worse to try to suppress them than to allow them.
And then there's stuff like incitement to violence or the president of the USA spreading dangerous lies about an election ... tolerance can only go so far.
Of course, it's a difficult call to make. Of course, no matter what you decide, someone is going to be angry. But you can't just not decide, you do have to take a stand and by refusing to do so, you have effectively already decided something (that's the whole point of Sartre's philosophy btw, which was inspired by WW2).
Why do we believe you instead of the other guy? Why does Facebook believe you instead of the other guy? Because Facebook is in the US instead of Iran?
Here's my position: I am a moral absolutist. Still, I don't want a moral absolutist deciding what Facebook thinks is appropriate content. There's too many systems of absolute morality, and too many of them differ from my own in important ways - ways that I'd like to be able to talk about.