I would like to respond to one piece in that article where it says,  What is debatable is whether Mark Zuckerberg and his company should be held liable for content that they did not produce; did not knowingly distribute; and had no reasonable way of controlling. It is impossible for these companies to profitably know about — and act upon — every single potential illegal activity that occurs on their networks, and it wouldn’t be fair to expect this of them either.  **IMO the moment Zuckeberg et al began censoring content that didn't agree with their world view, they made a de facto declaration of that world view. Therefore, in the act of censoring, they implied that all that Was NOT censored was approved by them and met with their standards. So videos of child porn, videos of a man beating the elderly in a Michigan Nursing home, the years-old video where a group of black kids held a disabled/retarded boy prisoner for days and beat him mercilessly while filming it live on Facebook -- all of those must be approved content since the Zuckertool left them up while censoring Pro-Trump and Pro-Q materials.  Any lawfags on here? I think I'm on the right track here...**