Because at this point facebook is so big as to be able to manipulate the votes. Corporations stop getting free passes of free speech suppression when they become monopolies.
Facebook isn't a monopoly. they aren't the only social media platform, nor are they even the most popular among certain demographics. What definition of monopoly are you using here? Also, what does "free passes of free speech suppression" even mean? Your language here is emotional and clearly carries its own bias.
"manipulating votes" implies vote tampering or some kind other kind of fraud, when what I think you mean is "manipulating voters," which isn't always illegal. And "free speech suppression" appears to mean moderation, but Facebook and all other platforms moderate their content under whatever arbitrary means they choose all the time, notwithstanding being legally require to "suppress" content already deemed illegal.
This isn't an entirely black and white matter, because moderation and, to some degree, manipulation are aspects of free speech. If Facebook doesn't have the right to set their own terms of service and moderate content under those terms, then who does is for them? The government? Is having the government restrict free speech really better than having corporations do it?
Every person I encounter has a Facebook. Even my ~100 years old grandma has one. Not sure what other social media has the same presence in the life of people. Tumblr/Reddit/Twitter are not even close and quite niche in the grand scheme of things.
>nor are they even the most popular among certain demographics.
Of course there are niche websites for some people, doesn't take away from how big Facebook is. Perhaps not technically a monopoly, but their influence is real and there should be barriers so it's not abused.
>"manipulating voters," which isn't always illegal.
Yeah of course, law has had trouble adjusting to the omnipresence of Internet for a while now.
>Is having the government restrict free speech really better than having corporations do it?
The government should not restrict free speech as much as Facebook is allowed to right now. Some laws prevent some sorts of extreme speech, e.g. hate speech, but I'd rather society come to a consensus on what's out of bounds than some corp choose them to cater to advertisers/their bottom line.
I fully support that. But the sad alternative we have now, is to have Trump draw the line (he's already trying to do that with executive orders targeting social media).
