Censorship is wrong, it's impossible for anyone to have an unbiased opinion.
Censorship of one's own platform is a central element of free speech.
> it's impossible for anyone to have an unbiased opinion.
That's true, but doesn't support the preceding claim.
ISPs can make the same argument against Net Neutrality.
We have good laws that cover these situations already.
no... there are laws on the books targeting threats. If you make a bomb threat you can be prosecuted.
Note well: This is post is not an actual threat, nor is it a call to violence.
In fact, such illegal speech was ALREADY being taken down by Facebook, for it's entire history of existing.
There is no need to change any policies to cover your example.
To try to satisfy both of you: "Hey, everybody, stale2002 bought a Kawasaki tractor instead of a John Deere!" - in a context where people in that community have been recently beaten up for buying the "wrong" kind of tractor. It's not an explicit call to violence, but it is an implicit one.
Note well: This is also not a call to violence. I have no actual information about stale2002's purchasing habits, whether tractors or anything else, nor would I consider it grounds for violence even if I did have such information.
To assume that even most cases would be as objectively apparent as your example (which I will argue is not demonstrably an implicit call to violence) I think is over zealous.
No, it's not ceding authority, because no one else had that authority over Facebook's private property to start with, and Facebook isn't exercising authority over anything but what it chooses to relay using its private property.
No, FB is (to continue the use of book-centered metaphors) choosing not to distribute certain books through its book distribution network.