Journalists would be absolutely salivating at the thought of writing about Facebook's new policy, especially if it was that blatant.
FB and Twitter are not the entire world. It's good praxis to be involved with people in the real world.
For instance in the UK Facebook banned the pages of a political party and very little was said because the same kinds of people who control Facebook also control the mainstream media, so they're almost always in agreement, except that journalists would really love Facebook to ban even more stuff to achieve the 'right outcomes', as they see it.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/359847/facebook-bans-far-right-uk...
There's that conspiracy language again!
And then you go on to link a piece of "mainstream media" that writes extensively about it! Did you mean to prove yourself wrong?
It's hardly a conspiracy - the worldviews of these people are formed in the same crucibles and result in the same outcomes. They want to manipulate the narrative to ensure the right outcomes, in their view.
You're comparing apples to oranges. What's it's ranking among tech/PC websites?
How about the Guardian?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/14/facebook-bans-...
How about BBC?
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46746601
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43398417
How about Wired?
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/facebook-britain-first-far-r...
Is that mainstream enough for you?
> They want to manipulate the narrative to ensure the right outcomes, in their view.
Prove it.
Look, the original comment I was taking issue with said this:
"Journalists would be absolutely salivating at the thought of writing about Facebook's new policy [of de-platforming and banning any discussion praising, defending, or favoring a political party], especially if it was that blatant."
That clearly isn't the case because it's happened already and journalists didn't salivate over it - they reported the event once and then it was never brought up again.
Really? Because from the citations I've given, it looks like a lot was said.
> That clearly isn't the case because it's happened already and journalists didn't salivate over it - they reported the event once and then it was never brought up again.
Because it was uneventful. It was a universally reviled thing that got banned, and rightfully so. There doesn't have to be "another side" to a story when that "other side" is filled with nothing but hate.
They're the British equivalent of the NSDAP.