In your scenario, do I not have any other options for showing my side of the story other than Facebook?
One is supposed to be a news agency, the other is supposed to be an information sharing platform for private individuals. There is some conflict here whenever you decide to pump a specific narrative.
> In your scenario, do I not have any other options for showing my side of the story other than Facebook?
I guess you could go with alternative college newspapers? The town crier method? Creating a blog?
My point isn't necessarily that you have zero way to attempt to give your side of the story –after all, Rittenhouse's attorneys, people who saw the videos & defended Rittenhouse in public and even the NYT all produced content and were able to spread it among themselves–, but that your enemies have a tech-amplified bullhorn to distribute false claims about you (most of which are "opinion"), which you have been deprived of.
In my opinion, it's not hard to see that in the absence of additional rebuttal context, especially the kind that disrupts the original framing, people's first impression will become hardened into "their truth."
[0] https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/22/twitter-suspended-me-fo...
[1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-libertarian-party-kyle...
As a result, the general public's first impression of your story is never challenged, and it becomes accepted as truth, despite being blatantly false.
Does Facebook have no obligation, even if only a moral one, to let you at least defend your own reputation when it allows literal defamation about you to be published unmolested?