What FB did was not censorship. They are a private company and can choose who is allowed to post.

Nor was it denying these folks free speech. They have their own sites / blogs / radio programs. They are free to say all sorts of heinous things on their own dime, but no one is obligated to amplify it for them and there's no reason society can't decide to threaten them with withdrawal of various forms of social reciprocity. That's what you do to asshats.

This is especially so when you understand the FB users are not FB's customer's, they are FB's product. All that has happened here is that Zuck realized, belatedly and imperfectly, that allowing certain products into the product lineup to his real customers (advertisers) was undermining the viability of his entire platform.

By your logic, FB should not shut down Russian bot / troll accounts or other forms of engagement designed to manipulate elections. But companies have the right to fire customers, too. I've done it many times. Unreasonably demanding customers can and should be sent packing. So should customers who pay slow or not at all. So should customers who, by associating with, you corrupt your own reputation and moral standing.

When you think about it this all falls under the umbrella of the most often overlooked human freedom: the freedom of association.

Under Twitter's TOS Trump himself should be banned. The only reason is deference to him as president which won't go on much longer. Hate speech has no place in a public forum and their banning reflects this. I would like to say I am not a user of FB or Twitter or any other online service like them. I encourage others to boycott services that collect all your online data and use it for marketing.

Exhorting people to do murder is illegal.
Think it over!

no opinion was ever changed through censorship

Freedom of speech is the fundamental foundation of democracy. I do not care if you are proposing the reintroduction of slavery, the reintroduction of burning witches, the ending of capital punishment or the abolition of personal property - I will listen to your argument ... and I have heard lots of crap over the years. If I agree I may speak to support you - and if I disagree I may speak against you - most likely I will keep my own counsel.
There is a move across UK Universities to 'no platform' certain people with controversial views. A university should hold the finest minds in the country, capable of dissecting ideas and highlighting failures in a proposed argument. I am deeply saddened that these youthful minds are already closed to open thought and criticism

Facebook, like any social media provider (indeed, like Agnostic.com), is a private corporation. They have the right to restrict users who violate the terms of service. They also have the right to change the terms of service. All users agree to these terms when they sign up.

Is fake news (I mean actually fake news, not what Trump calls "fake news", which is what he calls the real news) "important content", Powder? Are people who post malicious content "profound"? Because that's who we're talking about here. And for the record, censorship is a government activity. Facebook et. al. are not the government. They have the right to choose who to allow on their websites. If a customer in your business is disruptive, you have the right to ban them. They have the right to ban disruptive content.

I agree that some of their clips or content should be banned, but this movement to ban people entirely is dangerous.

There is no bottom to what can be forbidden next. Unless there's the threat of violence, slander or false impersonation, I'm for free speech. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be be allowed.