> The principles that we have on what we remove from the service are: If it’s going to result in real harm, real physical harm, or if you’re attacking individuals, then that content shouldn’t be on the platform.
> There’s a lot of categories of that that we can get into, but then there’s broad debate.
The outraged respondents are correct that there is no debate with holocaust deniers or Sandy Hook deniers. Zuck agrees.
But where there is debate is over what content should or should not be removed. Facebook can't be the authority entrusted with banning all uncertain, incorrect, or unkind speech from their platform, but they also can't be enablers of lynch mobs. There are many categories of speech between those extremes.
The debate is on where you've drawn the line, and he is saying that weak conspiracy theories are not something Facebook wants to take responsibility for quashing.