Facebook Removes a Gospel Group’s Music Video
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Don't conflate moral obligations with legal obligations, and don't conflate "what's guaranteed by the Constitution" with "what's in the best interests for the nation".
Well, that strongly implies legality since almost everyone here in the US thinks that they have a legal right to say what they want, where ever they want.
> and don't conflate "what's guaranteed by the Constitution" with "what's in the best interests for the nation".
Don't conflate "saying what you want on facebook" with "what's in the best interests for the nation".
political speech like the OP is only (temporarily) blocked from paid promotion, not organic virality.
Also, apply a sense of scope and proportionality. The media loves to sensationalize one bad example in a million examples that are fine.
> "so we’re [Facebook] asking people with content that falls under those rules to simply get authorized and show who paid for the ad in order for it to run.”
> “Separately,” the statement continued, “we made an error by deleting the original post. As soon as we identified what happened, we restored the post since it does not violate our Community Standards and have apologized to Zion’s Joy.”
In this case the political speech was only temporarily blocked, as the private company doing the blocking realized it was a bad decision. However if there was a government-imposed block on such free speech, then the government can (for all intents and purposes) permanently block it. For example see China's Great Wall.
> "..., not organic virality"
Well my concern is that an over-zealous campaign against advertising considered political would either block the video before it went viral, or lower its prioritization in news feeds such that it wouldn't been seen by much eyeballs and so it wouldn't catch on to go viral.