We have women who like publishing photographs of them breastfeeding their babies, and we have a corporation that thinks some people are offended by said photographs, so they take them down. The women insist on their right to publish said photographs on the very same website owned by the aforementioned corporation, so they stage a public protest.
I find it entertaining, but I mostly think it is a nice cultural moment in the history of the West. But it is by no means a big deal.
The issue is that "Facebook users don't accept me breastfeeding in public."
Facebook users, not Facebook.
Idiotic is a strong word because these types of protests are common enough that this issue gets more exposure than just to Facebook execs, but it could be a losing battle unless the mainstream Facebook user backs them.
What seems idiotic about the "pictures of breastfeeding infants should be allowed on Facebook" side?
(The fact that they don't give up on Facebook and use something else? But their goal isn't just to be able to post their pictures somewhere; they want to be able to participate in Facebook, where for good or ill much of the world's social life happens these days, without censoring themselves in pointless ways; and they want everyone on Facebook to have that freedom. Saying they should go elsewhere instead of protesting at Facebook would be, on a much smaller scale, a bit like saying that people unhappy with their country's government should emigrate rather than protesting at their government.)