I get it. People don't like Facebook. I don't either. I don't trust the people who run it. They're dillweeds who seem to delight in degrading people (the founder referred to people who trust him with their personal data as "dumb fucks"). And they're surprisingly open about how they put their thumb on the scale of online discourse, in many, many different ways. Everyone ought to be pretty upset with them over something, given how broad their portfolio of awfulness is.
But political speech is the center of our First Amendment shield. It's the part we need to protect most, and every other kind of speech is trivia in comparison. And recently, in the guise of anti-espionage efforts directed at Russia, or equal-time or fairness rules for conservatives, people have been talking about platform limits. The more disturbing element of the conversation has been about trying to limit 'fake news'.
But have you heard the President talk about this? This is the guy you want to give the power to silence lies? He views accurate and reasonable criticism as fake news. Surely even his supporters, even those who think the New York Times is a threat to the republic, couldn't they be persuaded that this kind of power would be terribly dangerous? Wouldn't they be verified of a Democrat having that ability?
I'm surprised, over and over again, how people just like their team having power. Normally, that makes a kind of cynical sense, but this particular example is clearly a power their leader is not competent to wield. Trump cannot decide which things are true and which things are false for the good of the country. He can't even figure them out for the good of his prepared statements to the press.
This general theme is important: viewing the government through the lens of power-allocation is generally much more useful than a specific policy lens. This is essentially the same argument I used in dismissing electoral college reform, despite the electoral college being strange and silencing the voices of almost everyone outside swing states.
If there's something about Marxism I like (and boy, liking one thing about Marxism is a lot to ask), it's probably that this framing is an essential part of our government toolkit. It matters who has power, and no private organization is anywhere remotely close to the American Government. If you're concerned about abuses of power, you are wasting your time (to a virtual certainty) looking anywhere else. I don't mind wasting time, and it's not that everyone else should be under the radar. It's just an issue of scope: if you dislike abuses of power, this is something you need to think about. Reducing the size of government will do more to advance equality of power than any single other thing.
And letting them tell you what to say, what you can't say, and what's real and what's not – that's a power no one should have over others. I recommend the much better, more historical Reason piece on the same topic, with the same conclusion, with a different analysis.