> Why aren't they being criticised?

Because newspapers have editorial boards, ombudsmen, and liability (in the form of libel) for what they print. Facebook has the conceit that it doesn't have any perspective, that it's just a carrier of speech of others. The concern is that Facebook (and YouTube and Twitter) already has preferences (such as for controversy over dry facts) and is developing more (curation through fact checking, etc.).

If Facebook came out and said, "Yeah, we're more or less like Readers Digest but for the internet" I suspect they'll still have detractors, but it will be more of the "I don't like reading Readers Digest" variety, not of the "Someone needs to break up Readers Digest!" one. They might also lose accounts, too, because who wants to write for a paper with clear points of view and biases that work at cross purposes to their own?

In the US - which tends to be the main country articles like this on efocus on - it is almost impossible for public figures such as politicians to sue newspapers for libel, and any suggestion of changing this is immediately met with sinilarly outraged articles about it being a danger to democracy. Also, the editorial boards are just as keen on pushing their preferred narratives regardless of the facts as the papers themselves.

Gawker certainly was held accountable. Facebook blames it's users if similar content is posted. But it also censors and suppresses content. I'm just saying it should pick a lane. Be a carrier or have editorial control.

Mainstream media has gotten a lot worse in the last few decades because subscriptions have tanked and now most of their profit determined by how many clicks facebook and twitter send their way. Newspapers have to choose between competing with buzzfeed or closing their doors.

Real journalism is a casualty of social media too.