In an astounding move, it banned a post commemorating the Holocaust and vowing, "Never Again." Pamela Geller has the story:

The company that enjoys monopolistic control over the social media market and pillages the data of users to sell to others is busily building the case that it is a malign force, siding with the worst elements in our culture and suppressing forces of truth.

By Right on Daily, July 012019

Yup – this post got removed: Note the wording of their BS excuse. It makes me wonder if Muslims and their friends in the Holocaust Denier Movement are organizing an effort against stuff like this.

Meanwhile, Facebook is welcoming back Jew-hater Louis Farrakhan. Newsbusters reports:

Hate preacher Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam organization's pages were deplatformed from Facebook on May 2 during its purge of "hate speech." While most remain banished, Facebook strangely has allowed one dedicated to Farrakhan and "Black Supremacy" to return from the grave. The page, "Supporters of The Honourable Louis Farrakhan," openly describes itself as "a replacement for the group we lost called The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan." Its group description cites strange, poorly written conspiracies about white oppression of black culture via mind control. "These thoughts and ideologies," says one post, "that clearly benefits white societies, were shrewdly programmed into the minds of millions of Black people through media subliminal programming without most even realize it." [sic] (snip) The page has undergone numerous name changes in that time. According to Facebook's own records, on October 1, 2018 it was known simply as "Black Supremacy." As of Jan 7 2019 it was known as the more tame, but oddly wordy "Black Lives Matter | Freedom & Justice for all Black Lives."

Facebook's political manipulation is generating political enemies who will support government action against it. For example, Senator Josh Hawley's bill:

Hawley, a tech critic, introduced legislation on Wednesday [6/1919] that would remove the immunity big technology companies receive under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The CDA protects online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube from liability for the content users post. However, companies will be able to earn immunity from the crackdown if they submit to audits every two years to prove their algorithms and content-removal practices are "politically neutral." The idea of limiting Section 230 immunity has earned bipartisan support in recent years, as the companies have struggled to keep offensive and illegal content, ranging from terrorist propaganda to foreign-influenced election meddling, off their platforms. Repealing the immunity provision could force these companies to use an editorial system where every piece of user-posted content would have to be vetted for illegal or libelous material before it's posted, instead relying on algorithms and human checkers to scan it after it was already online and had a chance to spread to millions of people. This would fundamentally alter the business models of companies that depend on huge volumes of user-generated content, including all the big social networks.

I hope Hawley's bill is passed and signed into law. It's a start.