This is moving the discussion into "whataboutism" territory. It's certainly true that there are problems with other social media platforms, but that doesn't really detract from GP's point.
And, to address your new point about moderation being hard when you have billions of users: The thing about having billions of users, is that it gets you billions in revenue. In fact, revenue probably scales super-linearly with user count. Either way, the required-moderators-per-user actually decreases as you get more users because you can spread the fixed development costs of moderation tools (including ML models, obviously) over a larger number of revenue-generating users.
From your comment, your key point is apparently:
> just to mention the inconsistency with the blame solely being on Facebook itself
I don't think anyone is making the claim that it's "solely" a problem with Facebook. People are just pointing out and discussing mistakes that Facebook has made.
All of that said, Facebook is certainly doing better than they were a few years ago. For example, they now have people who can actually speak Burmese on their moderation team.[1] So that's a good start...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/business/facebook-myanmar...
> The disagreement centers on a chain letter that spread on Facebook Messenger in Myanmar in September. The messages warned Buddhist communities of an imminent Muslim attack. Meanwhile, Muslim populations received a separate message cautioning them of violence from militant Buddhist groups.
If you take that description to a smart, compassionate person who doesn't happen to know the 2015-2020 politics of Myanmar, they'll have no idea what the right moderation strategy is. (They're actually pretty likely to come up with a worse answer than Facebook, because the Burmese government is led by Aung San Suu Kyi, globally known from 1990 to 2015 as a brave fighter for freedom and human rights.) So this isn't just a matter of moderation tools; in order to moderate appropriately, Facebook has to be aware of all current human rights controversies in all countries. That's a high bar!
A whataboutism would be if you said “Facebook doesn’t do enough to stop mean but otherwise legal thoughts I disagree with” and someone replied “Ok, but Twitter is full of propaganda bots so that is worse!”
People use “whataboutism” to deflect from perfectly valid similarities they just wish not to discuss. It’s not the argument silver bullet it is used as.