Never understood this argument. Let's take a cause I disagree with. I'm pro-equality, but still think Christian Mingle shouldn't be forced to match up same-sex couples. Because I disagree with their values, of course, I'd never use their website. OF COURSE conservative Christians should be allowed to have a website that aligns with their values. Not only don't I think this website should be outlawed -- I also don't think it's a "bad idea" that shouldn't exist. I simply disagree with the values, so I don't belong to it.

Moving back to the current situation...

I only want to belong to a social network that values science and public health. Why shouldn't I be allowed to be a user of a website that has those same values? You're going to tell me that the kind of website that I want to belong to should be outlawed and not allowed to exist? Or, let's not even go that far... that it's BAD that it exists?

Keep in mind, you can have any view you want. This is whether or not Facebook wants to use their social network to help spread events that would endanger the general public. A "keep things closed" event would be treated the same way.

(I agree FB is too big and should be cut into multiple pieces. And they shouldn't have been allowed to buy Instagram. But for very different reasons. Mostly I worry about their impact, as well as Google's, on publisher ad revenue.)