If we were the censor, we would have the government do it (which represents us). Facebook's opinion of what they perceive to be morally dubious does not represent anyone but facebook themselves.
> If we were the censor, we would have the government do it (which represents us).
Well sort of. We can't legally, right? The constitution prevents that. If Facebook is simply censoring the things that consumers ask it to, it is absolutely serving itself (in a profit driven way), but it isn't asserting Facebook's morals. It's asserting something more like "American consumer morals".
Facebook clients are not individual, they're ad-centric. Facebook is serving what it believes to be advertisers' interest, which may not align with most people.
Plus, the reason we can't legally is because we agree it shouldn't be done.
> Facebook clients are not individual, they're ad-centric. Facebook is serving what it believes to be advertisers' interest, which may not align with most people.
But this still ultimately consumer morals, since it's about content that advertisers don't want to be associated with because that content will reflect badly on them in they eyes of the consumer.
> Plus, the reason we can't legally is because we agree it shouldn't be done.
We (generally) agree that the government shouldn't engage in censorship, yes. The claim that individuals and groups should not be able to themselves moderate the stuff that appears on their websites is a much more controversial claim.
